Preamble

The House met at Eleven of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Ministry of Health Provisional Order Confirmation (Sheppey Water) Bill [Lords],

Read the Third time, and passed, with Amendments.

COQUET FISHERIES PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL,

"to confirm a Provisional Older under the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries Act, 1923, relating to the River Coquet," presented by Mr. Noel Buxton; read the First time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 108.]

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH ARMY (GARRISONS, MALTA AND GIBRALTAR).

Commander SOUTHBY: 1.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether any reduction in the garrisons of either Malta or Gibraltar is contemplated?

The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. T. Shaw): No reduction in the military garrison of Malta or Gibraltar is contemplated.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND.

POTATO INDUSTRY.

Major COLVILLE: 4.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is now in a position to state his proposals for assisting potato growers in Scotland?

The SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Mr. William Adamson): I would refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. and learned Member for East
Fife (Mr. Millar) on the 17th December. I am not in a position to make any further statement at present.

Major COLVILLE: Can the right hon. Gentleman say if he will be able to make a definite pronouncement after the Recess in regard to this very important question?

Mr. HARDIE: Have the Secretary of State for Scotland or his Department considered the question of using surplus potatoes for the purpose of producing potato spirit, as they do in Germany?

Sir KINGSLEY WOOD: Cannot we have an answer from the right hon. Gentleman to my hon. and gallant Friend's question as to whether he is going to make a definite pronouncement after the Christmas Recess? It is an elementary question.

Mr. ADAMSON: I have already replied to the question, that I will give an answer as quickly as I can.

BLIND PENSIONS (WITHDRAWAL, SHETLAND).

Sir ROBERT HAMILTON: 6.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether, having regard to the fact that 13 persons belonging to Vidlin, Shetland, who have enjoyed blind pensions for a number of years, have recently been deprived of them on the ground of not being so blind as to be unable to perform any work for which eyesight is essential, he is satisfied with the method under which these pensions were first awarded and with the manner in which they have been withdrawn; and if he proposes to make any change in the system of awarding blind pensions?

Mr. W. ADAMSON: Until recently the Department of Health for Scotland were of opinion that the very heavy expense of sending fully qualified experts to Shetland was not necessary, and that blind pensions could safely be awarded on the advice of medical officers who were not specialists. The results of the visits by specialists to Shetland, and also to the Western Isles show that expert examination is necessary in certain cases. As regards the second part of the question, I am satisfied that every consideration was shown to the pensioners, and that the benefit of the doubt was awarded in borderline cases. As regards the last part, the Department are of opinion that,
save in cases of total blindness, pension should not as a rule be awarded in future except on the advice of an eye expert, and I am consulting the other authorities involved with a view to arrangements being made towards this end.

Sir R. HAMILTON: Does the right hon. Gentleman understand what a serious thing it is to withdraw a blind pension that has been enjoyed for six or seven years, and will he take steps to see that in future blind pensions are awarded to people whose blindness prevents them from carrying on the ordinary affairs of life?

Mr. ADAMSON: I am well aware of the seriousness of withdrawing a pension once it is granted, but I would suggest to the hon. Member that I would have been no party to withdrawing any pension unless there was good ground for doing so. I have already said, in reply to the main question, that so far as the future is concerned every possible care will be taken.

Sir R. HAMILTON: Will these people from whom pensions have been withdrawn have the right of an appeal, because it is obvious that there is a difference of opinion with regard to some of these cases?

Mr. ADAMSON: If there are any of the cases that think they have been hardly treated, I am quite prepared to accept representations from them.

Sir BERTRAM FALLE: Does the right hon. Gentleman think it fair to ask the local people to judge in such cases?

Mr. ADAMSON: So far as I am personally concerned, I was not responsible for that arrangement.

Dr. VERNON DAVIES: Does the right hon. Gentleman take the attitude that it requires a specialist to decide whether a man can see or not?

Mr. ADAMSON: There are certain cases where I think my hon. Friend will admit that it would require a specialist to judge.

FISHING INDUSTRY.

Sir R. HAMILTON: 7.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is aware of the difficulty which fishermen now have in replacing worn-out drifters;
and if he will state what proposals, if any, he has for assisting them out of that difficulty?

Mr. W. ADAMSON: As indicated in my reply to the hon. and gallant Member for Banff (Major Wood) on the 17th December, I have had no representations from fishermen requesting assistance for replacing worn-out drifters. At the same time, I am aware that fishermen will have to face the question at some future time and I have been investigating the possibilities of a new type of boat which could be built and run at a lower cost than the types now in use.

Sir R. HAMILTON: Is the right hon. Gentleman investigating the question of the necessary credit for the replacement of these boats, as well as the question of a new type of boats, and is he inquiring into that question of credit on a different basis from that suggested by the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland the other day in his speech at Aberdeen?

Mr. ADAMSON: I have already replied to that question.

Major the Marquess of TITCHFIELD: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the latter part of that supplementary question?

Mr. ERNEST BROWN: Will the right hon. Gentleman assure this House that in any such arrangement made for the fishermen of Scotland the point of view expressed by the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland that party politics should come in will not be the point of view of the right hon. Gentleman? [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer!"] In view of the very strange speech of the Under-Secretary at Aberdeen last Thursday, surely we are entitled to have from the Government an assurance that party politics will not come into the matter?

Mr. ADAMSON: That supplementary question has nothing to do with the question on the Paper.

Mr. BROWN: On a point of Order. Surely I am entitled to ask for an assurance, seeing that the Under-Secretary is a Member of the Government and has made a speech in Aberdeen suggesting that fishermen who do not vote Labour are not entitled to make applications?

Mr. SPEAKER: That does not arise on this question.

Mr. BROWN: Further to that point of Order. Surely, I am entitled to your protection in this matter. Here is a very serious statement made by a Minister in the country. We have his Chief here now, and surely the House is entitled to an assurance on this matter.

Mr. SPEAKER: The question does not arise.

Mr. BROWN: With all respect, it is precisely about these matters that the speech was made. It was made about arrangements for credit and applications made for the aid of distressed fishermen, and surely we are entitled to use this House at Question Time to elicit from the Secretary of State for Scotland an assurance that party politics will not be considered by the Government in this matter.

Mr. SPEAKER: I do not see how that arises on this question.

Commander BELLAIRS: May I suggest that the Under-Secretary should make a personal explanation after questions?

Major McKENZIE WOOD: 10.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is aware that at the outbreak of the War steam drifters which were commandeered by the Government were commandeered with their nets and gear; that while the fishermen were paid only 30s. for their nets they had to re-equip themselves at about £9 per net; and whether the Government has taken these facts into consideration in refusing the fishermen's request for a Government contribution to the relief fund?

Mr. W. ADAMSON: I am unable to answer the first two parts of the question without further time for inquiry, but I am doubtful whether the statements are wholly accurate and they do not appear to me to be relevant to the subject of the recent disaster off the East Anglian Coast. I refer to my answer yesterday to a question by the hon. and gallant Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Sir A. Sinclair) as regards the assistance which the Government are prepared to offer in connection with the losses suffered in that disaster.

Major WOOD: Does the right hon. Gentleman consider that, if these facts are only partially true, it shows that there is a real obli-
gation on the part of the Government to come to the assistance of these fishermen; and will he inquire how much truth there is in it, because it will be a great surprise to me if it is not true, as I have had it on first hand authority?

Mr. ADAMSON: These are questions which require careful inquiry. As to the second part of the supplementary question, I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to my reply to the hon. and gallant Member for Caithness in which I stated the assistance which the Government are prepared to give.

Mr. HARDIE: Has the Secretary of State and his Department come to any definition as to what is the exact amount of money when the sum is mentioned as being "about £9"?

SCHOOL-LEAVING AGE (MAINTENANCE ALLOWANCES).

The following Question stood on the Order Paper in the name of Sir FREDERICK THOMSON:

8. To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he can make a statement as to maintenance grants in connection with raising the school age in Scotland?

Sir F. THOMSON: The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for Scotland made a somewhat meagre statement on this subject yesterday, and perhaps he will amplify it to-day?

Mr. W. ADAMSON: I would refer the hon. and learned Member to the answer which I gave yesterday in reply to questions by the hon. Members for Leith (Mr. E. Brown) and for Lanark (Mr. Dickson).

LOCAL GOVERNMENT FRANCHISE, GLASGOW.

Mr. HARDIE: 9.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is aware that many young men and women residing with their parents have a parliamentary vote but do not possess the right to vote in local Government elections, owing to the practice of only allowing one municipal lodger vote where the rent of a house is under £20; and can he state approximately the number of parliamentary voters in Glasgow who do not possess the right to vote in town council elections?

Mr. W. ADAMSON: I am aware that the statutory qualification for the lodgers franchise, which requires that the lodgings shall be of a yearly value, if let unfurnished, of not less than £10, will in certain circumstances have the effect suggested in the first part of the question. The estimated number of parliamentary voters in Glasgow who possess no municipal vote is 100,000.

EMIGRATION.

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE: 30.
asked the President of the Board of Trade the number of emigrants from Scotland during the past six months, indicating the chief countries to which they have gone, whether within or without the Empire?

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. William Graham): As the answer contains a number of figures, I will with the hon. and gallant Member's permission circulate a table in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the answer:

The following table shows the numbers of British subjects who were recorded as leaving permanent residence in Scotland to take up permanent residence in the countries specified during the six months ended 30th November, 1929.

Country of future permanent residence.
Number of British emigrants from Scotland.


British North America
9,392


Australia
1,706


New Zealand
473


British South Africa
452


India (including Ceylon)
801


Other parts of the British Empire (outside Europe)
478


Total British Empire
13,302


United States
7,986


Other foreign countries (outside Europe)
431


Total foreign countries
8,417


Total
21,719

Oral Answers to Questions — UNEMPLOYMENT.

SOUTHWARK.

Mr. DAY: 12.
asked the Lord Privy Seal whether he has now sanctioned any work for the relief of unemployment this winter in the borough of Southwark; and will he give particulars?

The LORD PRIVY SEAL (Mr. J. H. Thomas): I have nothing to add to the reply given to my hon. Friend on the 10th December.

WORK AND DEVELOPMENT SCHEMES (LOANS AND GRANTS).

Mr. OSWALD LEWIS: 13.
asked the Lord Privy Seal what is the sum total of Government expenditure that he has sanctioned by way of grants of all kinds to assist schemes to provide work for the unemployed since 3rd June, 1929; and what is the total increase in the number of unemployed persons during the same period?

Mr. THOMAS: As regards the first part of the question, I propose to issue a further statement amplifying the White Paper recently issued, at a convenient date after the re-assembly of the House. As regards the second part of the question, the increase in the number of unemployed persons registered at Employment Exchanges within the period named was 203,575.

Mr. LEWIS: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman how long he thinks that it is going to take him to solve the unemployment problem at that rate of progress?

Mr. VAUGHAN: Do the Government intend to fix any time limit for grants, and is there any likelihood of an increased percentage of grants in the near future?

Mr. SPEAKER: That does not arise out of the reply.

Mr. THORNE: Is the right hon. Gentleman receiving co-operation from the local authorities or otherwise in connection with the men who have been transferred from other areas?

Mr. VAUGHAN: May I ask you, Mr. Speaker, if you will kindly allow my question to be answered for the guidance of local authorities?

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Would it not be possible for the right hon. Gentleman to issue the Paper before the re-assembly of the House, so as to give us an opportunity of examining it?

Mr. THOMAS: Certainly we will consider that, but the difficulty is that the White Paper issued was limited to schemes under the Development Act. I propose to issue a statement setting out the other particulars.

Sir K. WOOD: In that same White Paper, will the right hon. Gentleman kindly revise the statements which were made concerning my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition and his pledges with regard to unemployment?

Mr. THOMAS: I am quite willing, if the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition puts a question to me, to answer it.

Mr. ARTHUR MICHAEL SAMUEL: Will the right hon. Gentleman say in his White Paper how he justifies the statement which he made in his speech last week that there is a loss from £2,000,000 to £8,000,000 in overseas trade by the disuse of 22 trade Commissioners?

Mr. THOMAS: Certainly I will.

Mr. VAUGHAN: May I have my question answered?

Mr. THOMAS: The question was: Is there a time limit? No. We do all that we can to encourage local authorities to send in their schemes. With regard to the latter part of the question, I cannot conceive of any circumstances that will warrant an alteration in the terms. It is true that certain municipalities are hanging back with a view to that, and it is fair that they should know that I do not contemplate altering the terms.

Mr. SMITHERS: 15.
asked the Lord Privy Seal if he has any additional statement to make since the publication of Command Paper 3449?

Mr. THOMAS: I would refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply given to-day to the hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. O. Lewis).

Mr. SMITHERS: Cannot the Lord Privy Seal really tell the country in round figures what is the sum total in-
volved in all his schemes, for it is very important; further, is it not a fact that it is the duty of this House to keep a careful watch on public expenditure?

Mr. THOMAS: I know that it is the duty of the House to keep a watch on public expenditure, and I have indicated that repeatedly. With regard to the other part of the question, I would welcome being able to do it, but the House must know that no Government Department could possibly have at its disposal the precise day or the number of men employed by all the authorities in the country. It is impossible to get that figure.

WOMEN.

Sir KENYON VAUGHAN-MORGAN: 14.
asked the Lord Privy Seal what steps he has taken to provide work for unemployed women, and with what result?

Mr. THOMAS: I have nothing to add to the reply which I gave to the right hon. Member for West Woolwich (Sir K. Wood) on the 26th November, of which I will send the hon. and gallant Member a copy.

SOUTHERN HEIGHTS RAILWAY COMPANY.

Mr. SMITHERS: 16.
asked the Lord Privy Seal whether he has received an application for assistance from the Southern Heights Railway Company; if so, what is the amount of money or credit required; and how many man years are involved?

Mr. THOMAS: No formal application for assistance under Part I of the Development (Loan Guarantees and Grants) Act, 1929, has been received from the Southern Heights Railway.

HARBOUR IMPROVEMENT SCHEMES (ARDROSSAN).

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE: 63.
asked the Minister of Transport whether his attention has been called to the scheme under consideration by the port authority at Ardrossan for improvements to present facilities and their extension; and whether, seeing that the estimated cost of the total is about £90,000, the Government proposes, in view of the measures for relief of unemployment, to give any assistance towards carrying out the work?

The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Mr. Herbert Morrison): The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. No application in regard to the particular scheme to which the hon. Member appears to refer has yet been made so far as I am aware. It would be open to the Ardrossan Harbour Company to apply for assistance under Part I of the Development (Loan Guarantees and Grants) Act, 1929, and any such application would receive the careful consideration of the Committee, though I cannot anticipate their, decision.

Major COLVILLE: Is the Minister not aware that the terms offered to port authorities to carry out such schemes are not sufficiently attractive to encourage them to proceed with these schemes; and, in view of the fact that there are many such schemes waiting, will he consider whether rather better terms could be offered, in order to get men to work on such schemes?

Mr. MORRISON: For the purpose of this Act the Government have appointed an Advisory Committee, and the principal responsibility as to the terms offered must rest upon that Committee. There are limits to the extent to which Ministers can go in interfering with the discretion of such a Committee.

BENEFIT.

Major Sir JOHN BIRCHALL: 66.
asked the Minister of Labour whether the cases of those unemployed persons who have been disqualified from receipt of benefit as not genuinely seeking work will be at once reviewed if the Insurance Bill passes into law in its present form?

The MINISTER of LABOUR (Miss Bondfield): Yes, Sir, so far as the persons concerned have kept their names on the registers, or make fresh claims.

TRADE DISPUTE, BRADFORD.

Mr. LEACH: (by Private Notice) asked the Minister of Labour whether she is aware that a number of wool textile operatives, until recently employed by Messrs. G. Lund and Sons, worsted spinners of Bolton Woods, Bradford, who left their employment because they refused to accept a reduction of wages, were given their Unemployment Insurance Books and National Health Insurance cards marked in the spaces for 2nd and 9th
December, with the word "strike" in red ink, thereby rendering it practically impossible for them to get work elsewhere; whether this is not a serious breach of the Collection of Contributions Regulations, 1920 (S.R.O. 1920 No. 2014 as amended by S.R.O. 1925 No. 975) and if on being satisfied as to the facts she will take such steps as may be necessary to rectify this breach of the law?

Miss BONDFIELD: I will make inquiry at once into the cases mentioned. If the facts are as stated, there would be a clear infringement of the Regulations.

Mr. W. THORNE: What does the right hon. Lady intend doing with the person who made such a blunder?

Miss BONDFIELD: The necessary processes of the law will be undertaken.

Oral Answers to Questions — ENEMY DEBTS DEPARTMENT.

Lieut-Colonel Sir GODFREY DALRYMPLE-WHITE: 17.
asked the President of the Board of Trade what has been the approximate total cost to date since it was set up, of running the Clearing House for Enemy Debts, and its various branches in England and abroad; and will he state whether the whole of that cost has been defrayed by way of deductions from the disbursements upon accepted and approved claims by British nationals?

Mr. W. GRAHAM: The total cost of the Clearing Office to date is approximately £2,420,000. The whole of this cost has been covered by commissions charged on the sums paid to British nationals in respect of admitted claims and on the proceeds of ex-enemy property realised.

Mr. KELLY: Have any of these commissions been shared with any of the people who were representing claimants?

Mr. GRAHAM: I cannot say without notice.

Mr. SAVERY: 22.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will arrange for the staff of the Clearing Office for Enemy Debts in London and its branches to be reduced by at least 50 persons after the next payment of dividend by the Anglo-Hungarian Debts Branch?

Mr. GRAHAM: No special staff is retained for the payment of such dividends which is done by a small section temporarily reinforced from other parts of the Clearing Office. Reductions in the staff of the Office considered as a whole are effected as the state of the work permits; in fact the staff has been reduced by 66 since 1st June last and further reductions are imminent.

Oral Answers to Questions — MERCANTILE MARINE.

HATCHWAY COVERS.

Mr. A. M. SAMUEL: 18.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether his experts consider that the use of loose wooden covers and tarpaulins as covers of hatchways in cargo vessels endanger the safety of the vessels in heavy weather; and, if such is the case, will he take steps to compel the use of watertight steel hatchway covers?

Mr. W. GRAHAM: I am advised that wooden hatch covers of sufficient strength and properly fitted and secured are quite safe.
Apart from tankers, in which the hatches are small, there is very little experience of the use of steel hatchway covers. They are known to have certain disadvantages, and their compulsory use could not wisely be required.

HEALTH CONDITIONS.

Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE: 21.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if the committee set up by his predecessor a year ago to advise the Board of Trade and the Ministry of Health on matters affecting the health of the mercantile marine has yet reported; whether the report will be published; and what action has been, or will be, taken to improve the conditions affecting the health of the crews and passengers concerned?

Mr. W. GRAHAM: As the answer is a long one, I will, with the hon. and gallant Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPOET.

Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE: May we take it that the matter is really in hand now, and that an improvement is being made?

Mr. GRAHAM: Without replying to the last specific point, I think the hon. and
gallant Member will find a great deal of encouragement in the account of what is being done in this long reply.

Following is the answer:

The committee to which the hon. Member refers was set up to consider and advise on any questions affecting the health of the Mercantile Marine which the Board of Trade or the Ministry of Health might from time to time refer to them. The committee's advice on the various questions referred to it is submitted to the Departments as its consideration of each subject is completed and no general report is published. The subjects with which the committee has already dealt include the Ship Captain's Medical Guide which has been revised and issued, the Scales of Medicines and Medical Instruments and Stores for ships which do not carry surgeons, which also have been revised and issued, and the preparation of a code for facilitating medical consultation at sea by wireless telegraphy. This has been completed and forwarded to the International Code of Signals Committee. The subjects at present under consideration include an investigation of the statistics relating to the mortality of seamen and the hygiene of crew spaces on board ship.

LIFE-SAVING APPARATUS.

Mr. KELLY: 26.
asked the President of the Board of Trade what report has been made by the deputy chief inspector of lifeboats as to the use of the Schermulz pistol-rocket apparatus; whether further experiment is being made as to any advantages the Schermulz pistol possesses for the firing of a stronger rope-line for the saving of life at sea?

Mr. W. GRAHAM: The deputy chief inspector of lifeboats is an officer not of the Board of Trade, but of the Royal National Lifeboat Institution, and I cannot say what report he may have made to the Institution on the subject of line-throwing appliances, or what experiments are being made by the Institution on this subject. In pursuance of the Rules made under the provisions of the Merchant Shipping (Line-Throwing Appliance) Act, 1928, the Board of Trade have tested and approved the Schermulz and other line-throwing apparatus for use in sea-going ships, but it would be improper for me to express opinions as to the comparative merits of particular devices.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE.

TARIFF TRUCE (CONFERENCE).

Major COLVILLE: 19.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if he has received a communication from the Associations of British Chambers of Commerce protesting against the proposed tariff truce on the grounds that it would stabilise the handicaps under which British industry labours; and, if so, if he will undertake to have this view carefully examined before any such convention is signed?

Mr. W. GRAHAM: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. As I have already explained to the association, however, the proposed tariff truce does not involve the stabilisation of existing duties, but contemplates that during the period of the truce these shall be treated as a maximum without prejudice to any action that may be taken for their reduction.

Mr. A. M. SAMUEL: Has the right hon. Gentleman any proof that his suggestion, good as it may be, has been received with any favour by those countries which are now continuously raising their tariffs against us?

Mr. GRAHAM: The difficulties are very great indeed, but I still think that it is well worth while making this effort, and I have every reason to believe that from a very fair number of countries there will be at least a sympathetic response to the request that a conference of this kind should be held.

Mr. SAMUEL: I am not contesting the view of the right hon. Gentleman, but has he made representations with any result, to those countries that are continuously putting their tariffs up against us that they should, at any rate, stop until we have this consultation?

Mr. GRAHAM: In reply to recent questions in the House, I have informed hon. Members that, in cases where tariffs have been raised, the very fullest representations have been made.

Sir K. WOOD: Is it true that Australia and South Africa have refused to take part?

Mr. GRAHAM: There is a question dealing with that point a little later on the Paper.

Major COLVILLE: Will the right hon. Gentleman take into very careful consideration representations made toy bodies such as the one I have mentioned, representing as they do trade and industry all over the country?

Mr. GRAHAM: Yes; the House knows that I have received a very large number of representations, and I can say with a fair measure of truth that I read them all very carefully.

Commander BELLAIRS: 46.
asked the Prime Minister, in view of the fact that India, Australia and South Africa have refused to take part in the Tariff Truce-Conference at Geneva, whether the Government will endeavour to postpone the consideration of those proposals until after the Imperial Conference has been held?

Mr. GRAHAM: I have been asked to-take this question. The answer is that His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom are not prepared to adopt the-suggestion of the hon. and gallant Member.

Sir K. WOOD: Is it true, as stated in the question, that India, Australia, and South Africa have refused to taker part in the Conference?

Mr. GRAHAM: I understand that so far that is the position.

Mr. LESLIE BOYCE: In view of the great importance of co-operating with the Dominions and India in order to-develop the trade of the Empire, and particularly in view of the coming Economic Conference, does the right hon. Gentleman not consider it advisable for the Empire as a whole to enter into this, truce or not at all?

Mr. GRAHAM: We shall do everything in our power to encourage Empire trade, but it would be quite impossible to hold up a conference of this kind merely because one or two refusals have been received.

Mr. BOYCE: Would it not be possible in that case to expedite the Imperial Economic Conference, seeing that we are initiating these proceedings which are intended to lead up to a truce?

Mr. GRAHAM: That is a very large question, and it is not one into which I can go now.

Lord EUSTACE PERCY: Are we to understand that no consultation took place with the Dominions before the Government proposed this tariff truce?

Mr. GRAHAM: I think the Noble Lord would be in error in taking that view, but I would much rather questions on that point were directed to the Dominions Office.

Commander BELLAIRS: Will the Government. see that this question comes before Parliament in the form of a Resolution before confirming anything done at the Tariff Truce Conference?

Mr. GRAHAM: As I have already indicated, if any kind of agreement is reached that would form the basis of a Convention, there will be abundant opportunity for discussion before ratification by this Chamber.

IMPORTS (WAGES).

Commander BELLAIRS: 20.
asked the President of the Board of Trade in what imported articles it is usual to require a certificate that they are produced by workers earning trade union rates of wages?

Mr. W. GRAHAM: No such certificates are required on the importation of any articles into this country.

Commander BELLAIRS: Is not any sort of certificate required in the case of imported doors?

Mr. GRAHAM: Not to my knowledge. It may be that the hon. and gallant Member is referring to what may be required under Clauses in the Fair Wages Clauses Act. According to the information at my disposal, no certificate of this kind is required in the case of any goods reaching this country.

MERCHANDISE MARKS ACT (PROSECUTION, TOWER BRIDGE).

Mr. REMER: 25.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if his attention has been drawn to the conviction, under the Merchandise Marks Acts, 1926, with reference to woven wire at Tower Bridge Police Court on 18th December; if he is aware that this was a private prosecution after the Board of Trade had refused to prose-
cute; and if he will undertake in future that the Board will insist that the provisions of this Act are obeyed?

Mr W. GRAHAM: I have seen a report of this case in which the summons t was dismissed on payment of costs. Certain evidence was submitted to the Board 3 of Trade, but they were advised that it was not sufficient to justify them in taking proceedings. I cannot admit the im— plication in the last part of the question s that the Board have failed to take any steps which it was their duty to take.

POTATOES (IMPORTS AND EXPORTS).

Lord FERMOY: 29.
asked the President of the Board of Trade the total value and 5 tonnage of potatoes imported into Great Britain in the period 1st January, 1929, to 1st July, 1929, and the value and tonnage of seed potatoes exported to Spain for the period between 1st July, 1928, and 30th June, 1929?

Mr. W. GRAHAM: The total imports of potatoes into Great Britain and Northern Ireland registered daring the period from 1st January to 30th June, 1929, amounted to 179,100 tons, of a declared value of £2,471,800. The exports of potatoes, the produce of Great Britain, and Northern Ireland, registered as consigned to Spain during the period from 1st July, 1928, to 30th June, 1929, amounted to 29,400 tons, valued at £136,800. Separate particulars in respect of seed potatoes are not available from the official trade records.

Sir R. HAMILTON: May I ask whether the figures of imports cover the potatoes of the Channel Islands?

Mr. GRAHAM: I am afraid that point does not arise out of this question. If my hon. Friend will put his question down I will give him the information.

ARGENTINA.

Mr. HURD: 31.
asked the President of the Board of Trade the text of the de claration of Government policy which is to be made to the Argentine Government, especially in respect of any restriction of any kind, except as affects disease, on the importation of foreign food stuffs into this country?

Mr. W. GRAHAM: Discussions with the Argentine Government are still proceeding, and I am not yet in a position to make a statement on the subject.

Mr. HURD: May I ask whether, before a declaration of British policy is made, an opportunity will be given to this House of expressing an opinion, especially in view of the Imperial Economic Conference?

Mr. GRAHAM: I am quite sure that that point really does not arise, because the only declaration of policy in this case would be one to the effect that we do not propose to put taxes on imported foodstuffs in this country, and that, I imagine, does not require any discussion in this House, since I understand it is not proposed by any political party.

Mr. HURD: May I ask whether the declaration, according to the words of the British Ambassador, does not also include an inhibition of any restrictions of any kind?

Mr. GRAHAM: There is certainly a reference to that. I could not to-day go into details, but, broadly, the declaration is one in the sense I indicated in reply to the first supplementary question.

Mr. WISE: May we understand that there is nothing in this declaration which would prevent this country placing under national control its imports of wheat and meat?

Mr. GRAHAM: That raises a much larger issue, of which I should require notice, but I can say this, that there is nothing in this declaration or in what is proposed which, in my view, prevents this House or this country taking action in any direction it chooses.

EXPORT CREDITS (POLAND).

Mr. REMER: 43.
asked the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department how many guarantees under the export credit scheme have been given in the case of exports to Poland during this year; and the liability of the British Government under these guarantees?

Mr. GILLETT (Secretary, Overseas Trade Department): Seventy-three contracts of a face value of £127,517, in respect of exports to Poland, were entered into under the exports credits guarantee scheme between the 1st January and the 21st December. The Department's maximum liability under these contracts amounts to £74,316.

Mr. REMER: In view of the treatment which British traders have received recently in Poland, will the hon. Gentleman take steps to see that those credits are discontinued for the present?

Mr. GILLETT: I have no doubt that the facts referred to are known to the authorities and will be borne in mind when they are considering these matters.

Oral Answers to Questions — CONSUMERS' COUNCIL.

Lieut.-Colonel RUGGLES-BRISE: 23.
asked the President of the Board of Trade what progress he has made in arranging for the establishment of a Consumers' Council; when he proposes to ask Parliament to confer special powers on that body; and whether he has any evidence of profiteering in food?

Mr. W. GRAHAM: As regards the first two parts of the question, I can add nothing to the statements I have previously made in the House. As regards the third part, I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the reports which have been made from time to time by the Food Council.

Lord E. PERCY: May I ask whether it has been decided that the Consumers' Council should deal with commodities other than food?

Mr. GRAHAM: Yes, I gave a reply some days ago in which I clearly indicated that this Council would cover the necessaries of life, that is, articles other than food.

Mr. WISE: In view of the suggestions that have been made that this Conncil should cover the retail sale of coal, will the right hon. Gentleman publish his proposals before we get into Committee on the Coal Bill?

Mr. GRAHAM: I could not possibly give any pledge of that kind this afternoon, but I can assure the House that details will be available from the Amendments well in advance of any discussion.

Oral Answers to Questions — WHEAT AND FLOUR PRICES.

Mr. W. B. TAYLOR: 24.
asked the President of the Board of Trade the present price of English wheat per hundredweight paid to the producer and
the present price of flour per hundredweight charged to the consumer in Britain?

Mr. W. GRAHAM: The average price of British wheat ruling in the week ended 14th December, as reported by the Inspectors of Corn Returns, was 9s. 6d. per hundredweight; the London price of straight-run flour delivered to bakers, as recorded for 16th December in the London Corn Circular was 38s. 6d. per sack of 280 lbs. (equivalent to 15s. 5d. per hundredweight). The quotations for important provincial centres given in. the issue of "Milling" for 14th December are: Liverpool, 37s.-38s. ex mill; Bristol, 41s.-42s. delivered; Norwich, 41s.; Hull, 38s.-39s.; Newcastle-on-Tyne, 40s.-40s. 6d.; Glasgow, 40s. average price ex quay or store; South Wales, 41s. 6d.-42s. The London prices quoted in this journal were 41s. for town straights and 33s. 6d.-34s. 6d. for country straights, including delivery in each case.

Oral Answers to Questions — AFFORESTATION.

Sir G. DALBYMPLE-WHITE: 32.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade, as representing the Forestry Commissioners, whether the Forestry Commission is prepared to obtain from the Government powers to enable the Commissioners to enter into negotiations with the commoners of the commons in Wales with a view to getting their agreement to planting certain tracts of these large areas at present lying almost derelict?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. W. R. Smith): The Commissioners already have the powers referred to.

Mr. FERGUS GRAHAM: 33.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade, as representing the Forestry Commissioners, the probable scope for unemployment, the acreage, and the cost of the afforestation scheme in the Bewcastle district?

Mr. SMITH: On the Forestry Commission's Kershope and Neweastleton areas 407 acres are being planted this season. The expenditure on the two areas is estimated at £3,300, the greater part of which will be paid in wages and thus provide employment.

Major HARVEY: 34.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade, as representing the Forestry Commissioners, if he will state the amount of grants given for clearing scrub and undergrowth preparatory to planting in the years 1927 and 1928, respectively; and whether these grants represent the maximum allowed to be paid in each case?

Mr. W. R. SMITH: In 1927 scrub clearing grants amounting to £721 were made in respect of 625 acres, the exceptional maximum of £2 per acre being given in respect of 121 acres. In 1928 such grants amounted to £342 for 283 acres, the maximum being given in respect of 59.

Mr. EVERARD: Will the hon. Gentleman state whether the full amount of the grant sanctioned by this House has been expended?

Mr. SMITH: I should want notice of that question. Generally speaking, I think we do approximate to our estimates.

Oral Answers to Questions — POST OFFICE.

AIR-POST STAMPS.

Mr. EVERARD: 35.
asked the Postmaster-General whether he has considered the adoption of distinctive air-post stamps for letters despatched by air mail from Great Britain; and whether any decision has been arrived at in this matter?

The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Lees-Smith): I would refer the hon. Member to my reply to a similar question by the hon. Member for the Macclesfield Division (Mr. Remer) on 12th November. I have considered the adoption of a distinctive air-mail stamp, and in view of the inherent objections I have decided against its introduction.

Mr. EVERARD: Can the Parliamentary Secretary say how it is that the Dominions are able to adopt an air mail stamp, and why it is not possible in this country?

Mr. LEES-SMITH: The hon. Member is mistaken; not all the Dominions have adopted the air mail stamp, and the reports which we have investigated do not encourage us to repeat the experiment.

BRAILLE.

Commander SOUTHBY: 36.
asked the Postmaster-General whether, in view of the cost of postage on paper used by blind persons for writing in Braille and of the poor circumstances of the majority of blind persons, he will consider the introduction of legislation to amend the Post Office Act in order to enable this paper to be carried by parcel post at a special rate corresponding to the special rate now charged for paper already impressed with Braille type?

Mr. LEES-SMITH: I regret that I cannot see my way to introduce legislation on the lines suggested.

Commander SOUTHBY: Will the hon. Member receive representations on this subject from those interested in the blind?

Mr. LEES-SMITH: We have received representations from the National Institute, and I should be very glad to consider any further suggestions that they may make.

TELEPHONE FACILITIES (RURAL AREAS).

Lieut. Colonel ACLAND-TROYTE: 39.
asked the Postmaster-General whether he is continuing the policy announced in the last Budget of increasing telephone facilities in rural areas; and how many new public call-offices have been established in villages and at rural railway stations in Devonshire since that date, and how many he expects to establish in the next six months?

Mr. LEES-SMITH: An active policy of increasing telephone facilities in rural areas is being followed. Since April last, 76 call offices have been opened at post offices and railway stations in Devonshire, and 34 more have been authorised but not yet opened. Other cases are under consideration.

Sir DOUGLAS NEWTON: How many rural exchanges have been opened?

Mr. LEES-SMITH: I am afraid I could not give a reply with regard to rural exchanges without notice.

LONDON TELEPHONE DIRECTORY.

Major LLEWELLIN: 40.
asked the Postmaster-General whether he has received a petition from a number of in-
dustrial establishments in West Drayton and Yiewsley asking that names of telephone subscribers in that area be included in the London Telephone Directory; and whether, in view of the fact that names of subscribers in places further from the centre of London than West Drayton are already so included, he will take steps to have subscribers in that area included in future editions of the London Telephone Directory?

Mr. LEES-SMITH: The petition has been received and a reply sent. It is imperative that entries in the London-Telephone Directory—which is already unduly large—ishould be strictly confined to subscribers who are in the London area; and I regret that it is impracticable to make exceptions.

Major LLEWELLIN: Does the Parliamentary Secretary not realise that firms-whose names are in the London Telephone Directory have a considerable advantage over similar firms whose names are not in the Directory, and will he consider the advisability, in order to-reduce the bulk of the Telephone Directory, of issuing a toll directory to include all toll numbers?

Mr. LEES-SMITH: I should be glad to consider that suggestion, but I have not yet any ideas of my own upon it. With regard to the suggestion that firms nearer London have an advantage because their names are in the London Telephone Directory, I may explain that the London area is not taken by making a circle around a certain place, but is plotted out according to certain technical and administrative considerations.

Mr. A. M. SAMUEL: Does the hon. Member realise that the great number of entries in the Telephone Directory causes great inconvenience owing to the smallness of the type?

Sir COOPER RAWSON: Will the hon. Gentleman consider the advancing years of telephone subscribers, and issue a microscope with every Telephone Directory?

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSE OF COMMONS.

REFRESHMENT DEPARTMENT.

Major HARVEY: 44.
asked the hon. Member for Gorton, as Chairman of the
Kitchen Committee, if all the eggs used in the kitchens of the House of Commons are national-mark eggs?

Mr. COMPTON: Yes, Sir.

Mr. ERNEST WINTERTON: Is there any possibility of the Liberal party requiring eggs in view of an early General Election?

Major HARVEY: 57.
asked the hon. Member for the Gorton Division, as Chairman of the Kitchen Committee, if all the ingredients of the Christmas pudding produced in the kitchens of the House of Commons are of Empire origin?

Mr. COMPTON: Yes, Sir.

Mr. O. LEWIS: 58.
asked the hon. Member for the Gorton Division as Chairman of the Kitchen Committee why Colchester oysters are not supplied in the Members' Dining Room?

Mr. COMPTON: Owing to what we consider the excessive wholesale rate charged for Colchester oysters, the Kitchen Committee find it impossible to supply same to hon. Members at a reasonable price.

Mr. LEWIS: May I ask how the hon. Gentleman knows that Members of this House would not be prepared to pay a better price for a better article if he never puts the better article before them?

Mr. COMPTON: Colchester medium oysters cost 6s. 3d. per dozen, without any allowance for throw-outs. The Kitchen Committee are placing on the tables of the House to-day Whitstable oysters of similar size, which are supplied to Members at the tables at 5s. 6d. per dozen, and, believe me, that is just about as much as we can squeeze out of oyster consumers.

Mr. PYBUS: Is the Chairman of the Kitchen Committee aware that Colchester oysters come from Brightlingsea, which I represent, and not from Colchester; and, in view of the prominence that is given to the problems of Scottish fishermen, may I ask the hon. Gentleman if he is aware of the desperate plight in which the Brightlingsea fishermen have been placed by their inability to get their oysters on the tables of the House of Commons?

Mr. PALMER: Arising out of my hon. Friend's original reply, may I ask if the inflated prices for these extraordinary dishes do not in fact have the effect of inflating the prices of the normal dishes which ordinary Members want?

Mr. COMPTON: No, Sir, the opposite is the effect.

STANDING ORDERS (PRIVATE BUSINESS).

Captain BOURNE: 45.
asked the Prime Minister whether he proposes to ask this. House to appoint a Select Committee to review the Standing Orders relating to Private Business; and, if so, when will such Committee be set up?

The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Ramsay MacDonald): Since the Resolution of the House on the 13th November last, the review of Standing Orders relating to-Private Business has been under consideration, and I hope it may be possible-to consider the appointment of a Select Committee soon after the House reassembles.

Oral Answers to Questions — EXPORT OF HORSES BILL.

Captain MARGESSON: 47.
asked the-Prime Minister whether it is his intention to give facilities for the further-stages of the Export of Horses Bill?

The PRIME MINISTER: The Government cannot undertake to provide-facilities for this Bill.

Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTE: Is the Prime Minister aware that there is very great uneasiness on this matter among horse lovers, and will he try to find an opportunity for this Bill?

The PRIME MINISTER: I wish we had time and opportunity to legislate upon everything upon which there is very great, feeling.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL FINANCE.

TREASURY BILLS.

Captain BOURNE: 49.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the lowest denominations in which Treasury Bills are offered for sale?

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Philip Snowden): Five-thousand pounds.

Sir GEORGE PENNY: 55 and 56.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury (1), whether he will take steps to issue Treasury bills in the denominations of £10, £50, and £100, in view of the increase which has taken place in the numbers of small investors in this country, so that they can secure the fullest advantage from their thrift;
(2) whether he will increase the rate of interest on Post Office deposits should it be found impossible to issue Treasury Bills of small denomination, so that the small investor will not be placed in a less advantageous position than the investor of large sums?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence): The matter does not lend itself to agrument within the limits of an answer to a Parliamentary question, but I fear the hon. Member's suggestion would be quite impracticable. The question of the fixed rate of interest on Post Office deposits is under consideration, but at present I am not in a position to make any statement about it.

PETROL DUTY.

Captain MARGESSON: 51.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the amount of revenue derived from the Petrol Duty

Commitment.
Estimated Expenditure.


1929.
1930.



£
£


Under commitments detailed in previous Statement
8,243,000
18,967,000


Add—




Item 2. Under the proposals contained in Unemployment Insurance (No. 2) Bill, 1929, as
amended.
250,000
2,000,000


Item 5. Agriculture and Fisheries—Loans for fishing nets, Scotland.
50,000
—


Revised Totals
8,543,000
20,967,000

Oral Answers to Questions — RUSSIAN TRADING ORGANISA TIONS (TAXATION).

Commander BELLAIRS: 52.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether Soviet Russian trading organisations in this country will be subject to the ordinary processes of taxation and inspection of books for the ascertainment of profits?

Mr. P. SNOWDEN: The Commissioners of Inland Revenue are precluded from

from the beginning of the financial year to the latest convenient date?

Mr. P. SNOWDEN: The approximate amount of revenue derived from the tax on hydrocarbon oils from the beginning of the financial year up to the 30th November was £10,336,000.

Oral Answers to Questions — COMMITMENTS.

Captain MARGESSON: 50.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he can give a statement of the additional commitments entered into by His Majesty's Government since 1st June up to 31st December, 1929; and the estimated cost for the current and forthcoming financial years?

Mr. P. SNOWDEN: I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the statement given in reply to his question of the 19th November, and to the White Paper (Command Paper 3449) showing schemes approved for grant under the Development Acts and from the Road Fund. Additions have now to be made to that statement involving estimated expenditure from the Exchequer of £300,000 in 1929 and £2,000,000 in 1930. I will circulate details of these additions in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following are the details:

disclosing information as to the liability to tax of particular taxpayers. The hon. and gallant Member may be assured that the organisations to which he alludes will be dealt with in conformity with the law.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH MUSEUM (LOAN COLLECTIONS).

Dr. DAVIES: 53.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury upon how many
occasions the trustees of the British Museum have put into operation their power to lend possessions of the British Museum in accordance with the terms of the British Museum Act, 1924; and will he arrange for the provisions of that Act to be brought to the notice of suitable public authorities throughout the country?

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: Since August, 1924, the trustees have on 14 occasions exercised the power of lending conferred upon them by the British Museum Act, 1924. In that year a circular letter calling attention to the trustees' loan collection was sent to public authorities maintaining suitable art galleries. In view of the references to local loans in the recent Report of the Royal Commission on Museums and Galleries, a further communication will now be sent to public authorities.

Mr. A. M. SAMUEL: Might I ask the Prime Minister, who is one of the trustees of the British Museum, whether he is satisfied with the fact that the Museum has made such loans on only 14 occasions?

The PRIME MINISTER: I am afraid that I must have notice of that question.

Oral Answers to Questions — SERVICE PENSIONS (FORFEITURE ON CONVICTION).

Commander SOUTHBY: 54.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether he will take whatever steps may be necessary to prevent the loss of pension to any ex-service pensioner who may have been convicted and sentenced to imprisonment in any civil Court, observing that service pensions are deferred pay and have been earned by the recipient during years of good service with good character, and that such forfeiture, in addition to the sentence of imprisonment, constitutes a double punishment for one offence?

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: I am satisfied that the present Regulations governing this matter are adequate, and enable fair treatment to be given to pensioners.

Commander SOUTHBY: Is the House to understand that there is a discretion
on the part of those in authority in regard to the giving or withholding of a pension after conviction in a civil Court?

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: The pension regulations of the Army, the Air Force, and the Admiralty provide for the forfeiture of pensions on civil conviction. All three Departments have the power subsequently to restore the pension, and, in cases of hardship, the pension or part of it may be paid to the man's wife or children during his imprisonment.

Commander SOUTHBY: Is the hon. Gentleman not aware that the question at issue is that a man's pension is what he has earned during a period of good character, and that it should belong to him, and not be subject to civil action afterwards?

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT.

CHARING CROSS AND WATERLOO (RAILWAY CONNECTION).

Mr. OTHO NICHOLSON: 59.
asked the Ministry of Transport whether he has made representations to secure a connection between the new Charing Cross station and Waterloo Station sufficient to ensure through running from the Kentish to the Surrey suburban electric services and the avoidance of terminal congestion?

Mr. HERBERT MORRISON: The question of a railway connection between the new Charing Cross Station and Waterloo Station, to ensure through-running between the Kentish Surrey suburban services of the Southern Railway Company, was discussed with the Company when the plans for the new Charing Cross Station were under consideration, and the conclusion was reached that the travelling public would not derive sufficient benefit to warrant such a connection being established.

LONDON TUBE RAILWAYS.

Mr. O. NICHOLSON: 60.
asked the Minister of Transport whether he will secure a re-examination of the proposal to construct a deep-level tube railway for fast traffic between Hammersmith or Earl's Court and the City, thereby relieving rush-hour congestion and providing employment?

Mr. HERBERT MORRISON: I understand that, in the opinion of the railway companies concerned, with which I am disposed to agree, there are other improvements of London tube railways which are likely to be needed before any such scheme as that to which the hon. Member refers. I would remind him that some of the improvements at Hammersmith for which power is sought in the London Electric Railway Company's Bill of this Session should, if carried out, have the effect of relieving the pressure on the Metropolitan District Railway.

TYNE (CROSS-RIVER TRANSPORT).

Mr. EDE: 61.
asked the Minister of Transport if he is yet in a position to answer the application of the county boroughs of South Shields and Tyne-mouth for the appointment of an engineer to report on the possibilities of effecting a crossing on the Tyne between these county boroughs; and, if not, when he will be in a position to answer?

Mr. HERBERT MORRISON: A letter was sent to the two county boroughs on the 21st instant making a formal offer of a grant towards the cost of the engineering investigations which it is desired to undertake.

LEEDS-GOOLE CANAL SCHEME.

Sir J. BIRCHALL: 62.
asked the Minister of Transport whether any further steps have been taken with regard to the suggested Leeds-Goole Canal in order to provide more employment?

Mr. HERBERT MORRISON: I am in communication with the committee set up to investigate this project, and am awaiting further particulars from them.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL AIR FORCE (AIRCRAFT).

Captain HAROLD BALFOUR: 64.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether any war-time designed aircraft of the De Haviland 9a, and Bristol Fighter types are still in use in service squadrons and instructional units of the Royal Air Force; and, if so, when it is anticipated that the last machines of these types will be struck off the strength of these units and replaced by aircraft of modern design?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for AIR (Mr. Montague): Yes, Sir; a certain number of D.H. 9a and Bristol
Fighter aircraft are still in use, but both types have been BO continuously developed and improved that they now differ greatly from the war-time aircraft of the same names. As regards the second part of the question, it is hoped to substitute new types of aircraft for all D.H.9a's by the end of 1930, and for all Bristol Fighters by the end of 1932.

Captain BALFOUR: Will the hon. Gentleman give an assurance that, whatever economies may be instituted in the Services, nothing shall be allowed to interfere with this vital replacement programme?

Mr. MONTAGUE: I do not see that that question arises out of the original question.

Oral Answers to Questions — MR. FRANCIS LORANG.

Sir K. WOOD: 69.
asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department why Francis Lorang, against whom a warrant has been granted, has not been brought to trial?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Short): The whereabouts of the accused are unknown; the police are still continuing their inquiry.

Sir K. WOOD: Has it not been reported on many occasions recently that this man is living in luxury while many of his victims here are in a very grievous condition? What was the last occasion on which the police heard about this man, and what steps have been taken to bring him to justice?

Mr. SHORT: I cannot very well add anything to the answer I have given, in-as-much I said the whereabouts of the accused are unknown.

Mr. A. M. SAMUEL: Is it not a fact that the Treaties which the Foreign Office can put into operation are inadequate for the purpose, and could not the Foreign Office review the whole position of International Treaties with regard to extradition?

Oral Answers to Questions — LICENSING LAW (ROYAL COMMISSION).

Sir K. VAUGHAN-MORGAN: 70.
asked the Home Secretary whether he will request the Royal Commission on
Licensing to present an interim report on licensed houses in the London area with a view to early parliamentary action to rectify existing anomalies?

Mr. SHORT: My right hon. Friend does not think he could properly make any such request.

Oral Answers to Questions — LIQUOR TRAFFIC (STATE CONTROL).

Mr. F. GRAHAM: 71.
asked the Home Secretary if he will state the capital expenditure incurred, together with the approximate annual profits derived from the following State controlled properties: Apple Tree, Lowther Street, Carlisle; Malt Shovel, Carlisle; Near Boot, Tarraby; Coach and Horses, Kingstown; and Black Lion, Durdar?

Mr. SHORT: My right hon. Friend is afraid he cannot comply with this request. The financial position of the State management undertaking at Carlisle is set out in the accounts published with the Annual Report, and to give separate figures, in respect of any of the properties owned by the undertaking, would be a new departure on which my right hon. Friend does not wish to embark.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE (GOVERNMENT PROPOSALS).

Lieut.-Colonel RUGGLES-BRISE: 72.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether the official statement issued to the Press on 17th December by his Department represents the full programme of His Majesty's Government in relation to agriculture; whether the measures indicated are calulated to restore prosperity to farming; and, if not, what further measures are in preparation?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of AGRICULTURE (Dr. Addison): The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. The extent to which the proposals referred to are beneficial will depend upon the use that is made of them by the agricultural community. The aim of the Government is to improve the standard of life of those who work upon the land, and further proposals to this end will be submitted in due course.

Lieut.-Colonel RUGGLES-BRISE: Can the right hon. Gentleman say, in reply to the second part of the question, whether the measures indicated are calculated to restore prosperity to farmers?

Dr. ADDISON: I have not mentioned any individual proposal. I have spoken about them collectively.

Oral Answers to Questions — JUSTICES OF THE PEACE (APPOINTMENTS).

Mr. EVERARD: 75.
asked the Attorney-General the number of magistrates appointed in the boroughs and counties, respectively, in the year 1928, and what proportion of these were women?

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL (Sir James Melville): In the year 1928, 388 magistrates were appointed in boroughs in England and Wales, of whom 43 were women, and 633 magistrates were appointed in counties in England and Wales, of whom 67 were women.

Mr. FREEMAN: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman also consider whether, in making these announcements, he could give some information to the House as to which particular political party they belong?

Oral Answers to Questions — EDUCATION.

SECONDARY SCHOOLS (FREE PLACES).

Mr. F. GRAHAM: 76.
asked the President of the Board of Education when he proposes to develop facilities for free secondary education?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Morgan Jones): This matter is receiving my right hon. Friend's consideration, but he is not yet in a position to make a statement.

BUILDING PROGRAMME.

Lieut. Colonel ACLAND-TROYTE: 77.
asked the President of the Board of Education whether he is aware that local authorities cannot complete their building programme by 1932; and whether he will extend the time limit for the 50 per cent, grant for another five years?

Mr. MORGAN JONES: My right hon. Friend is not prepared to extend the time limit for the 50 per cent, grant, but he
would remind the hon. and gallant Member that the increased grant is payable, not in respect of buildings completed by 1st September, 1932, but in respect of expenditure to which the authorities become committed before that date.

Sir K. WOOD: Is the hon. Gentleman in order in replying to a question from that Bench? Is it because he wishes to dissociate himself from his colleagues?

Mr. SPEAKER: No point of order arises.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL NAVY (CHINESE STATION).

Captain CROOKSHANK: 78.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty what is the number of naval units now in Chinese waters; and how does this figure compare with those in February, 1927, 1928, and 1929, respectively?

The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. A. V. Alexander): As the reply is in tabular form and contains many figures, I propose, with the hon. and

Class of ship.
1st February, 1927.
1st February, 1928.
1st February, 1929.
20thDecember, 1929.


Cruisers
12
5
6
5


Aircraft Carrier
1
2
1
1


Flotilla Leader
1
2
1
1


Destroyers
8
16
8
8


Submarine Depot Ships
2
2
1
—


Submarines
12
12
6
—


Sloops
4
4
4
4


Despatch Vessel
1
1
1
1


Submarine Tender
1
1
1
1


Gunboats
15
18
18
18


Vessels commissioned for special service.
3
4
3
Nil



60
67
50
39

It is anticipated that the Submarine Depot Ship "Medway" and four "O" Class Submarines will leave England for China in February, and two more "O" Class Submarines will follow later on in the year.

Oral Answers to Questions — INDIA ARMY (MECHANISATION).

Captain BOURNE: 80.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether mechanisation is being adopted by the Indian Army; and, if so, to what extent?

gallant Member's permission, to circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Captain CROOKSHANK: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there are more there now than in the time of the first crisis?

Mr. ALEXANDER: The figures are set out in the answer. I would ask the hon. and gallant Gentleman to wait and examine them. Some submarines about which some doubt has been expressed will be leaving shortly.

Captain CROOKSHANK: Are we to understand that the present Government think it a very wise thing to keep an adequate force there to protect British interests?

Mr. ALEXANDER: The present Government always take adequate steps to protect British interests.

Captain CROOKSHANK: Since when has the right hon. Gentleman come to that opinion, in view of statements which he has made previously?

Following is the table:

The SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Mr. Wedgwood Benn): Yes, Sir. Steps are being taken to mechanise Cavalry Brigade and Divisional Trains, and Field Artillery Brigades and Divisional Ammunition Columns.

Captain BOURNE: Is it possible to use any of these units on the North-West Frontier?

Mr. BENN: That is a different question, of which I must have notice.

Oral Answers to Questions — NIGERIA (RIOTS).

Mr. PALMER: (by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if his attention has been directed to the native riots in Nigeria, whether he can state the cause of the trouble, and whether he can say what steps are being taken to restore order.

Captain CROOKSHANK: On a point of Order. That is a question which is on the Paper in my name, No. 89.

Mr. SPEAKER: I am afraid that I had overlooked that. The question can only be asked with the hon. and gallant Gentleman's permission.

Captain CROOKSHANK: I very gladly give the hon. Member permission.

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for DOMINION AFFAIRS (Mr. Lunn): We have had no notice whatever of this private notice question, but the answer of my hon. Friend, who cannot be here to-day, to the question asked by the hon. and gallant Member for Gainsborough (Captain Crookshank), is, "No, Sir."

Oral Answers to Questions — ADJOURNMENT OF THE HOUSE (CHRISTMAS).

Resolved,
That this House, at its rising this day, do adjourn until Tuesday, 21st January."— [The Prime Minister.]

ADJOURNMENT (CHRISTMAS).

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Kennedy.]

SINGAPORE NAVAL BASE.

Sir GEORGE PENNY: In raising the question of the Singapore Base to-day I do not intend to discuss it from the purely naval point of view, as hon. Members will be speaking in this Debate who are more qualified to speak upon it from that aspect. I would like to say in passing, however, that every naval officer to whom I have mentioned the slowing down or the abandonment of this Base has stated that it would be deliberate strategical suicide if we were to do so. The decision of the Government to slow down the work at the Base resulted in many questions being asked of the Government, and I regret to say that many of those replies were considered vague and unsatisfactory. Hon. Members asked the Government whether the Dominions had been consulted, and the First Lord of the Admiralty replying stated that they had been notified. When further pressed in this direction he said he had no reason to suppose that the answer which he had given was out of harmony with their immediate views, but he would like a little more time before giving a definite answer. We have waited for that definite answer and it has not yet been forthcoming. The Under-Secretary of State for the Dominions has told us that they are in daily telegraphic communication, so that I cannot see why that reply has not been given. The Dominion Press comments in regard to those views being in harmony with the Government statement are not borne out, at any rate, by the Press comments which I have in my hand at the present time. The "Melbourne Herald" says:
Australia cordially supported the League of Nations and all the movements towards disarmament as a result of the Washington Conference. Yet, if the international peace movement means the jealous retention of naval power in northern waters and the use of the Dominions' interests as insignificant counters for bargaining, it will be strange if public opinion in Australia and New Zealand does not undergo notable changes.
The "Argus" says:
In any case the decision comes from practically the same Ministry which decided in 1924 to abandon the Base altogether.
There was no thought of deferring to the decision of an international conference on that occasion. The disturbing conclusion is that the Labour Cabinet in Great Britain is making the Base a pawn in the political game. Such behaviour when serious consequences are at stake cannot be indulged in with impunity. The Singapore Base is essential to the adequate defence of the Empire and vital to those portions situated within the Pacific zone.
That is what Australia says. New Zealand also makes some very severe criticisms, for it is stated that concern is expressed in Wellington, and the "Auckland Star" says:
Informing the Dominions of the decision is very different from consulting them. The Imperial authorities should take the Dominions completely into their confidence before finally resolving on a step that so vitally concerns their safety and the interests of the whole Empire.
The "Wellington Evening Post" points out that information which falls short of full consultation is not calculated to produce a unified Empire policy. I think the House will agree that those comments do not confirm what the First Lord of the Admiralty told us. I would like to ask him if any protests have been made by the Dominions against the action of the Government and if so by whom? As regards the contributions which have been made to the Imperial Government, we know that New Zealand has contributed £250,000. We know that Hong Kong has contributed a like amount and the Federated Malay States £1,200,000. All of these contributions were made on the specific understanding that the Base would be proceeded with. Of those contributions £1,294,000 has been expended, and I would like to ask the Government if they decide not to continue with the Singapore Base, whether they are prepared to refund the money which has been contributed, seeing that it would have been taken from the Dominions and the Colonies under false pretences. We were told the other day that most of the money had been spent by a Conservative Government. I agree as regards this, but we have been keeping faith with the Colonies and the Dominions. When the Labour Government say they are going to do away with the Base as they did in 1924 and that we have a good naval protection at home, it is very poor consolation to the people in those parts. The Government might just as well say: "We are going to do away with the police
force throughout this country but we are going to maintain the Metropolitan police." Supposing there was a wave of crime throughout the country, would it be of much help to the people in the north to know that we had a good police force in London. The same thing applies in this connection. I hope, in view of the importance of this Base, that it will not be used as a pawn in the game of party politics.
As regards the slowing down programme, I would like to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty: Will there be any loss entailed by this slowing down and have they estimated the cost which will have to be faced by the country if they eventually decide to do away with it altogether? Turning from those points there is the very important aspect of the forthcoming Five Power Naval Conference. I have lived in Singapore and those parts for about 20 years and I have taken the keenest interest in the Singapore Base since its very inception. I realise that Singapore is the key to the Pacific, and the late Lord Roberts told us that it is there that the mastery of the world would some day be fought out. The cost, although heavy, is a mere bagatelle to the vast value of the Imperial assets it will defend. Many of the opponents to the Singapore Base object to it because it is what they regard as a war-like object at a time when there is an anti-war feeling growing throughout the world. I hope that that feeling for peace and disarmament will grow and get stronger and stronger as time progresses, but I think that their attitude in considering the anti-war feeling is universal is based upon a fundamental error.
There may be, and there is, a strong antiwar feeling in Europe, and at times I am doubtful whether the insistence of the beastliness of war is really all to the good because there is another side to war, and we should not be sitting in this House under these conditions to-day had the youth of the nation in 1914 only considered the beastliness of war. They are mistaken in thinking that the antiwar mentality is shared by all. European and Asiatic views are as different as the poles apart. East is East; as it always was and as it always will be. I defy anyone to produce a tittle of evidence to show that the anti-war feel-
ing has altered the views of the Eastern peoples. Orientals look to war as being the final argument. Islam is growing from strength to strength and is still the same old conquering creed. The warlike tribes of India with their Afghan neighbours have shown no desire to give up their fighting instincts. Japan, that great country, would rise as one man at the Emperor's call. The Chinese, with their teeming millions, the majority of whom are so poor that they cannot even afford to eat the rice that they grow, and have to live on millet instead—hon. Members opposite may laugh—

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Mr. Amnion): I was laughing at your Christmas sentiments.

Sir G. PENNY: It is not a question of Christmas sentiment. I want peace as much as anyone, and so does the party to which I have the honour to belong. We do not give mere lip-service to it, as do so many hon. Members opposite. I am surprised at the hon. Member for North Camberwell (Mr. Ammon) speaking in that way. The conditions are such in China that men can be hired to risk their lives, on lawful or unlawful occasions, for the sake of a few dollars. They have in that country the greatest potential reserves of man-power in the world, composed of men who know nothing of war guilt and who know nothing of the League of Nations; they have heard of neither. These men are prepared to die for the sake of a square meal and a 10 dollar note.
I wonder whether the opponents of the Singapore Base have ever considered the position that would arise in the Far East if the Bolshevists obtained control over these vast man-power reserves. We know of the Soviet activities throughout the world. We know what has happened in China, in South Africa, in Egypt and m India, yet the Socialist Government have resumed diplomatic relations with Soviet Russia without obtaining a definite guarantee that they are going to stop their poisonous and persistent propaganda against this country. They have given us no guarantee that they will control the Communist International, which is a part of the Government organisation. What will happen if a conflict should take place in these particular parts in the Far East? I do not know whether hon. Members
have ever seen a prairie fire, how it advances, devastating and devouring everything as it goes along, and gaining force on the damage it has done. So it would be with the great hordes of people in that part of the world, were they aroused at any time. As I have already said, the mentality of the Asiatic is entirely different from that of the European.
I would like the House to consider this question from still another angle, and that is, in regard to Malaya itself. The cost of the Singapore Base is trifling compared with the millions of pounds which the two great key industries of rubber and tin have given to investors in this country. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] Yes. Investors who are the taxpayers of this country. There are some 30,000,000 tons of shipping which pass through that port every year. The cost of the Singapore Base would be a small amount as an insurance premium for the protection of our shipping and our trade routes. We have been told that to do away with the Singapore Base would be a friendly gesture to Japan. I would point out that the construction of the Singapore Base was taken into consideration when the question of Hong Kong was discussed at Washington. The Japanese are a business nation who, if they make a bargain, stick by it. They would not take the abandonment of the base as a friendly gesture, but as an act of folly on our part. From the geographical point of view, I would ask the House to realise that Japan is as far from Singapore as America is from England. Therefore, what menace could the Singapore Base be to Japan?
When the Singapore Base was proposed, Malaya might have taken up the attitude: "If we have a base here, it is going to invite attack. We will have nothing to do with it." They took the larger view. They said: "We see that it is in the national interest that we should have a base here. Therefore, we will accept the risk." Not only did they take that risk, but they contributed loyally and generously. We remember what the Federated Malay States did during the War. They gave us the battleship "Malaya," and they sent contributions of men and money. They stood by us in the hour of need. These people out there, with whom I was associated for so many years, and know intimately, have abso-
lute trust in the honour and sincerity of the British nation. I sincerely hope that the Labour Government will not decide not to continue with the Singapore Naval Base, but that they will complete it. In that way they will be keeping faith with the rulers and peoples of Malaya, and with our Dominions, and will be giving security to our trade and, in my considered opinion, be providing a great factor for the maintenance of permanent peace in the Pacific.

Mr. GEORGE LAMBERT: My hon. Friend and I are old antagonists on this question of the establishment of a new battleship base at Singapore. I had the honour of opposing the proposal when it was first made in this House, and I must say that as I go along my objections become stronger and stronger. In the first place, I would congratulate His Majesty's Government on having secured the assent of His Majesty to open the new Naval Conference which is to be held next month. It is a very fine gesture on the part of His Majesty, and we hope that the Conference will be successful. I should imagine that the decision to slow down this Base would be necessary in view of such a Conference being held. I want to go a little more closely into the question of the Base and what I consider to be its strategic futility. We must remember that this is a Base for battleships. The cost of the Base is growing every year. I had an answer to a question the other day which stated that the present Estimate was £11,600,000, of which the Dominions would find £3,250,000. That means a burden on the British taxpayer of £8,350,000. I want hon. Members to realise what is likely to be the eventual cost of the Base, upon which this enormous sum of money is to be spent. The present Estimate is over £11,000,000. What it will be in the end no one can say. The shortest route to the Base from Portsmouth is more than 8,000 miles. That is from 30 to 40 days' steaming. What does that mean?

Mr. MACQUISTEN: It is 32 days.

Mr. LAMBERT: I said from 30 to 40 days. We are going to spend this enormous sum of money and we shall have these great commitments at Singapore 8,000 miles away, 32 days' sailing distance from our shores.

Sir G. PENNY: What about our Dominions?

Mr. LAMBERT: I will come to the Dominions later. There must be not only this capital expenditure but there must be an enormous annual expenditure. Does the House realise that the War Office are in this scheme and that they are proposing fortifications to the tune of £2,000,000? Then there is the Air Force. They have Estimates for £600,000. What is to be the size of the permanent garrison to be maintained at Singapore? We have never had information on that point. I have asked questions over and over again, but nobody has been able to say. The late First Lord of the Admiralty and the late Secretary of State for the Dominions never gave us an estimate. This is an unlimited commitment for the British taxpayer. We are establishing in the East, 8,000 miles away, another Portsmouth. The hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Sir G. Penny) talked about the Bolsheviks, the Afghans and the Chinese. Singapore will hardly be a defence against the Bolsheviks, the Afghans or the Chinese.
I could never understand why the Singapore base was commenced. It was begun in the days of the Coalition Government, in 1921, when millions did not matter. [An HON. MEMBER: "They showed vision."] They certainly showed vision as regards expenditure, and we are reaping the bitter results to-day. But this base must be there for some purpose; and it can only be there as a protection against our late allies and friends, the Japanese. What is it there for, if it is not as a protection against Japan? It is not a protection against the Bolshevists in Moscow or pirates in Shanghai. We are not building this base at a cost of these millions of pounds unless there is some purpose behind it. The Hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames says quite correctly that a great amount of commerce flows through Singapore from the East to this country. I was at the Admiralty in the early days of the War and I want to say that if we are at war with Japan no Singapore base, or any base you can erect there, will enable commerce to pass from the East to the West. Our commerce is bound to be paralysed. Let hon. Mem-
bers carry their minds back to what was accomplished by a few German raiders in the War.

Rear-Admiral BEAMISH: Before the convoy system.

Mr. LAMBERT: You cannot have a convoy over 8,000 miles

Rear-Admiral BEAMISH: Oh yes, you can.

Mr. LAMBERT: Well, really, I must ask hon. Members to bear this in mind, that Japan is a great naval power. Germany was bottled up, and you cannot have a convoy system over 8,000 miles with a great naval power in the East if you are fighting that Power. I submit to the gallant admiral that it is not possible. It is said that this base is to be a protection for our commerce; and it is 3,000 miles from Japan. The hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames talked about Australia, which is 4,500 miles from Japan. Australia is inhabited by a vigorous and virile race, and does anybody believe that Japan will attack Australia.

Sir BERTRAM FALLE: They would have it in two days.

Mr. LAMBERT: My hon. and gallant Friend represents Portsmouth, a dockyard town, and he is supposed to have some naval knowledge. Singapore is about 3,000 miles from Japan, and if the Japanese can attack Australia 4,500 miles away, may they not first attack Singapore? That is really a point which has never been met in this House. I have read all the Debates. If the Singapore base, with these enormous commitments, is to be protected against a hostile attack it must have a large garrison, and it must be a garrison of white troops. That garrison must always be there. You cannot reinforce at a time when there is likely to be any danger of hostilities. My mind goes back to the days of the South African War, when even that vigorous statesman Mr. Joseph Chamberlain, could not send troops to South Africa because of the fear of precipitating the very contingency which he desired to avoid. You cannot reinforce Singapore at a time of strained relations because it would bring about the very thing you desire to avoid. The late Chancellor of the Exchequer,
I remember, always said that you have to be prepared at the enemy's selected moment. Therefore, unless we kept a large garrison at Singapore it will simply be a present to Japan. I wonder the late Government did not ask the Japanese Government to contribute towards the cost. Let us go back in history. Take the Russo-Japanese War. The Russians made a great fortified base at Port Arthur. It was taken by the Japanese.

Rear-Admiral BEAMISH: Take a little British history.

Mr. LAMBERT: Surely we should take experience from foreign nations. Are not Singapore and Port Arthur very much on a par?

Mr. MACQUISTEN: Port Arthur was sold by its own garrison.

Mr. LAMBERT: Well, that is a new version which I have never heard before. I have no doubt the hon. and learned Member is a better judge than I am of selling and buying, but I thought the Russians defended Port Arthur with great valour. I want to deal with this subject seriously, and when the hon. and gallant Member for East Sussex says, let us have a little British history, I am giving a little Russian history in order that it may not be repeated by Great Britain. Port Arthur was taken by the Japanese from the land, as Singapore can be taken. Assuming there is a state of war, what garrison must there be at Singapore in order to protect these great docks and fortifications, which have cost £11,000,000 already? Sabotage would be at work at once. I read the other day that one in every 10 coolies in Port Arthur was a Russian spy. There will be spies in Singapore when there are strained relations. When you are establishing a battleship base it means that you are preparing for war. Let me read to the House a description of the locality where we are going to locate this large garrison. I take this description from an article in the "Times" of the 17th May, 1928:
Where only so short a time ago the crocodile wallowed, eventual playing-fields are coming into existence and buildings are being erected … The whole of the preparatory works are given out to contract, the contractors and the labour being Chinese.
That is one way of solving the unemployment problem here! The article goes on:
The country at Changi consisted—and still largely consists—of impenetrable jungle, rubber plantation and palm proves on the hill-sides, and dense mangrove-covered, slimy-waterlogged, or tide-flooded marshes wherever the coast is flat.
And that is where we are going to plant a garrison in the East!

Mr. MACQUISTEN: What about the Thames?

Mr. LAMBERT: My hon. and learned friend must remember that the Thames is not on the equator, and the crocodile never wallows there. This is where we are to establish a garrison—a large garrison, and a permanent garrison. But it is not only a garrison; there must be a very large force of naval artificers there. If you are to repair battleships in time of war, there must be an enormous amount of machinery there. Who is to keep that machinery in order, right bang under the equator? I do not think that this matter has ever been really thought out; as a fact, I am certain that it has not. Here is what is being suggested; this is the "Times" article again:
The new town of Changi will serve its purpose well, to house the garrison of artillerymen and engineers, and perhaps a battalion of infantry, for the defenre of the Naval Base.
A battalion of infantry, 1,000 men to defend that base against attack! As I have said, this has never been thought out; I am as certain of it as possible. What sort of garrison are we to keep there? I suppose the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Admiralty has had access to the records. Has he ever considered what kind of garrison must be kept in Singapore to defend it in time of war against a strong naval Power over there? [Interruption.] An hon. Member says that there will be more work. I happened to be at the Admiralty when the new naval base at Rosyth was being built. Magazines had to be built, a submarine base had to be built, and a hospital had to be built; and hospitals will have to be built at Singapore. Does anyone realise what the ultimate expenditure is going to be? Really, I am afraid that economy in a democratic country is a good deal out of date. Hon. Members opposite want money for social reform; hon. Members on this side want money
for armaments. Where the taxpayer is coming in, I am not quite sure; but this base must be maintained in perfect order. We are told that we must look ahead, and that it will not be ready for 10 years. Cannot we have a little rest for the time being? Who can say what is going to happen 10 years ahead? [An HON. MEMBER: "We must be ready!"] My hon. Friend says "Be ready." I happen to know that, if you are going to be ready for every contingency, the taxpayers of this country will be paying, not £100,000,000 a year, but nearly £300,000,000 a year for armaments. This is a battleship base. The battleship is a weapon which may be out of date 10 years hence. I should not like to say one way or the other; naval opinion is very much divided upon the point, and the Air people are very emphatic about it.
Let me put this to hon. Members as a common-sense question: Assume that we were at war, does anybody believe that we are going to send immense battleships which cost £7,000,000 a piece to be 8,000 miles away in time of war? Of course we are not. Why not? So many men might jump in here. Does anybody believe that these great battleships will be permitted, in time of war, to be 8,000 miles away at Singapore? The idea is perfectly ridiculous, and my hon. Friends really ought to know it. If they do not know it, it shows that they have not considered the matter at all. [Interruption.] I do not mind these interruptions, and I am ready to reply to them, but I think I might just as well go on with my argument. It is not only a question of battleships. Battleships are no good in these days without destroyers, cruisers, submarines, and all the paraphernalia.
I suggest, therefore, that it would be a very wise thing if the Government dropped altogether the building of this base. The Dominions can be compensated. It would be infinitely cheaper to pay them than to involve ourselves in a liability of £8,000,000, with a large liability, the amount of which no one knows, for annual expenditure. Nobody can say what the cost will be. If any hon. Member here will tell the House, I shall be glad, but I do not know what it is. It may be £1,000,000 a year, it may be £2,000,000 a year. No one can say what will be the size of the garrison which will be needed. Therefore, I hope that the
Government will not only slow down, but will drop altogether the work on this base. I have never had the slightest doubt about it.
Let me put one point which may be a little appropriate to this Christmas season. We have signed the Covenant of the League of Nations; is our signature a scrap of paper? We have signed the Kellogg Pact; is that an empty form 1 Are we to honour our signature of the Kellogg Pact by building an enormous battleship base? This, in my judgment, is preparing for future war. I have faith enough to believe that, by the Covenant of the League of Nations and the Kellogg Pact, the risk of war has been greatly diminished. I say therefore to the Government that I hope they will drop this base, which will be costly financially and will be futile strategically. I cannot see any reason for its construction.

Rear-Admiral BEAMISH: I desire to speak in favour of the base at Singapore, but I am perfectly sure that right hon. Gentlemen on the Government Front Bench can make just as adequate a defence of the whole principle of that base as I can, against what they have heard from the Front Bench below the Gangway, because I am confident that it is not the intention of His Majesty's Government to do any more than slow down, and perhaps modify, the base at Singapore, and that it is certainly not their intention to take advice from the Liberal party. Liberals should be cautious how they advance these conceptions of their's. I am absolutely staggered and amazed to think that the Liberal party has learnt so little since the risks which they created for this-country up to 1914 that a member of their party who is an ex-Minister of the Crown can stand here and make the assertions and suggestions which the right hon. Member for South Molton (Mr. Lambert) has made. He commenced his speech by what I would call confusing the issue, and by a misrepresentation in describing the Singapore base as a battleship base. It is nothing of the kind. That is confusing the issue, and intentionally so.

Mr. LAMBERT: I beg the hon. and gallant Member's pardon; it is to be a battleship base.

Rear-Admiral BEAMISH: Nothing of the kind.

Mr. LAMBERT: I say that it is.

Rear-Admiral BEAMISH: These bases are not described as "battleship bases" at all. This is a base for the use of His Majesty's Navy in war.

Mr. LAMBERT: For battleships.

Rear-Admiral BEAMISH: The right hon. Gentleman speaks of the enormous sum of £11,500,000, of which more than £3,000,000 is being paid by the Dominions and Colonies. An enormous sum! And yet we expend more than £24,000,000 a year on extra doles and extra pensions, when the whole interest and safety of the British Empire is literally imperilled if the Navy has no base to use in war. He talks of unlimited commitments. Is not the British Empire an unlimited commitment? Is it not desirable that we should do everything possible in reason to protect the Empire's interest? Unlimited commitment indeed! Then the right hon. Gentleman spoke of Singapore being another Portsmouth. It is nothing of the kind; that is a gross exaggeration, to put it no higher, or lower. It is not to be another Portsmouth and no one in his wildest imagining would suggest that it will be any such thing. At Portsmouth the capital expenditure has probably run into hundreds of millions. Does anyone suggest that in the course of centuries anything of the kind will be necessary at Singapore?
I observed the other day, in a speech made by a friend of mine, apropos of bases, a remark which I think is worth repeating. He said that you may just as well expect the British Navy to work in war from Malta and Gibraltar and our own home dockyards, without a base such as Singapore, as expect the London General Omnibus Company to work their system with a garage at John o'Groats. That is a very fair simile. Every single argument that has been put forward by the right hon. Gentleman could be applied with equal force to Gibraltar and Malta, and I do not believe that even the Liberal party would go to the length of suggesting that we should dismantle those bases.

Mr. LAMBERT: Singapore is a case of building, not dismantling.

Rear-Admiral BEAMISH: The right hon. Gentleman also talked of compensating Australia and New Zealand and the Colonial Dependencies in the East. Has he asked them? I suggest that he make a speech in Australia or New Zealand and see what sort of response he gets. They have not the slightest intention of giving up their absolute desire that the Singapore Base be proceeded with. They are not so foolish as to suggest that we should spend unlimited money on the base. But the safety of the Empire and of trade in that part of the world is dependent on having a base from which our fleet can work. Now I address myself not so much to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman as to the occupants of the Government Front Bench. I do not wish further to impress them with the necessity for the base, except by giving one quotation. It is from the final Report of the Committee on Industry and Trade. I give the quotation merely, as it were, to encourage the Front Bench, because I believe that they sincerely believe that the base must be continued, even if it be slowed down temporarily. The Committee say:
During the past century there has been a steady growth in our dependence on overseas supplies for the essential means of existence, and there is not the slightest reason to expect that the tendency will be arrested or reversed in the near future.
If there were nothing else to go by, that should be sufficient for anyone who has made even a cursory study of naval requirements. We should continue with the base. The Government, I must confess, have done badly in the matter. They refer in "Labour and the Nation" to the desirability of keeping the public and this House very fully informed of everything that is going on. Yet it has been only with the greatest possible difficulty that we have been able to get such information as we have at last obtained by a process of pumping. It is not right. This question should not be a party question; it is purely a national question. The Prime Minister has spoken of its being a waste of public money which he cannot incur. No one wants public money to be wasted, but it is not being wasted in this instance. It has also been said that as it is a matter of policy it cannot be brought up at the Five-Power Conference. Who is to guarantee that matters of this kind cannot be brought
up at the Conference? I know that the question of the capital ship will come up, and that we shall hear a great deal more about it. It is just possible that some minor changes may be necessary at a place like Singapore if the size of the capital ship be considerably reduced from the present standard, but at the same time the alterations would not be such as to suggest any serious modification.
I am afraid that I consider the whole attitude of the Government is only another instance of the policy of scuttle and surrender to the pacifist outlook. I have looked at the foreign Press and have not seen a single congratulatory comment on our action in the matter. It is a very foolish gesture, made under the guise of a good intention. It convinces no single thinking man, and only causes foreigners to smile and to hope for further concessions from ourselves. I had hoped that the Prime Minister would be here. I must confess that I have not any faith in him as a representative of this country during the forthcoming Conference. I am sure that my view in the matter is shared by a great many people in this country. How can I and how can people have real confidence in a right hon. Gentleman who, at the beginning of the late War or a few days after the start of that long-drawn-out four years of agony, encouraged our people by pointing out, in a speech which was reported at Leicester, that one of the principal reasons for the War was that the Admiralty was anxious to seize any opportunity of using the British Navy at battle practice. The right hon. Gentleman is the principal representative on whom we have to pin our faith at the forthcoming Conference.
I spoke just now on the Liberal view regarding the Dominions and Colonies. There is not the least necessity to elaborate that point, except to quote what the Prime Minister of Australia said in 1926:
I can only say that Australia believes that the Singapore Base is absolutely essential.
I am confident that that view has not changed one iota in the years that have passed. Why should we risk the security of our Dominions in order to help out what I would call the misguided pacifists? I have no idea what is the Admiralty view in these matters, except from my
practical experience as a naval officer. But I would emphasise that this is a national question. The expert after years of experience can base naval requirements only on his experience and on history and, above all, on the geographical disposition of the Empire as a whole, and its trade. He must do that. If he is given other standpoints by the Government it is his business to say, "Well, if that is the case, so-and-so will suffice." It is the duty of the Government in such cases to make it perfectly clear to the British public that the decisions which are come to are not necessarily the decisions that have been suggested to them by their experts. The policy of reduction has almost invariably in our history proved itself to be the precursor of disaster.
I said something just now as to this expenditure not being the gigantic sum that the Liberals suggest. It is a sum that we can easily and properly afford. It is race suicide for us to go on pouring out doles and pensions, as the present Government are doing, and at the same time run the tremendous risk of disintegrating our principal defence service by failing to provide it with adequate bases and ability to protect trade routes during war. My last word is this. It has always happened in the past that it is not the Government of this country which pays the bill when it has to be paid. The Navy has to pay it, and, above all, the nation has to pay it, and if we continue the principle of giving in all the time at the dictation of this, that or the other nation, or of our own pacifists and enemies at home, I foresee nothing but disaster in the future. If only the fate of Admiral Byng could overtake misguided statesmen, how much safer we should be in this country.

Commander SOUTHBY: I have no desire to reply in detail to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Molton (Mr. Lambert), but I think it is necessary to refer to his amazing statement that if, in war, your enemy is 8,000 miles away your battleships should not be there to meet that enemy. Before making that statement the right hon. Gentleman should have looked more closely into history and he would have found that decisive actions have been fought all over the globe and at very great distances from this country. If I
do not make a detailed reply to the right hon. Gentleman it is only because I am reminded of the words of Robert Louis Stevenson:
The touching confusion of the gentleman's mind completely disarms me.
In discussing the question of the Singapore Base it is well to consider first why there is any such question at all. The construction of the base was undertaken 'in accordance with a resolution passed at the Imperial Conference of 1923. In 1924 the Socialist Government with, I suggest, a complete lack of consideration for the Dominions and a lamentable lack of ideas with regard to proper provision for the defence of this country, decided not to proceed with the base. They were not unanimous on the subject, and one may well believe that on this occasion the present Government are not unanimous either. It is interesting to read what was written in the Socialist Press on the subject at that time. In 1925 it was stated in "Forward":
It is no doubt necessary to have a pied a terre somewhere in the Pacific … a weak link will let the British Empire down never to recover.
Mr. Newbold, then a Socialist Member, writing on 21st March, 1925, said that since it was situated at the grand junction of the East
the strategic importance of Singapore alike for mercantile and naval purposes is immense.
1.0 p.m.
Here at least one finds some appreciation of the necessity for a base at Singapore. At the Washington Conference in 1921 the whole question of bases was reviewed and it was clearly laid down that America should have the right to fortify Pearl Harbour in the Hawaiian Islands, one of the strongest strategic positions in the world, and that Japan should fortify Formosa, and her bases in the East, and that Conference broke up with the definite understanding that we should have the right to fortify Singapore. There was no doubt about it. Japan knew it, the United States knew it and everybody at the Conference knew it. It was a perfectly clear and harmonious understanding. At the Imperial Conference of 1921 the representatives of the different parts of the Empire clearly recognised the necessity for the base. I think I am right in saying that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for
Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) presided over that Conference, and I think I am also right in saying that, when a vote was taken in this House in 1924, he paired against the base with my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition.
At the Imperial Conference not one dissentient voice was raised against the base. The matter was thrashed out by the Committee of Imperial Defence, and there was unanimity in recommending that the base should proceed. We have heard the base described by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Molton as a battleship base. The right hon. Gentleman apparently thinks only in terms of battleships, but this base is a naval base from which ships of every kind are to operate for the defence of trade in the East. The House might consider what exactly is meant by a base. A base is a place where His Majesty's ships can refresh, refit and replace supplies. It may be asked why is this particular base necessary. I would remind hon. Members that round this base lie three-quarters of the territories of the British Empire; that round this base live three-quarters of the inhabitants of the British Empire. Thousands of millions of pounds' worth of trade pass across the Indian Ocean every year and this base is at the gateway of the Pacific and the Indian Oceans. It is as vital to the humblest worker in this country as to the wealthiest person that that gateway should be adequated defended. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Molton said that we on this side were asking for armaments. We are not asking merely for armaments, as such, but for the defence of the Empire, which, as I say, means as much to the humblest citizen of the Empire as to the wealthiest.
Modern ships require modern bases. Hongkong and the old Singapore base are out of date and as a matter of fact the point of strategic importance in the East has shifted. The vital key position is Singapore. Hon. Gentlemen opposite know, and no one knows better, that the trade of the Empire is the life-blood of the Empire. Singapore is a necessity if we are to keep that stream moving and safe. There is another aspect of the question and that is the defence of the Empire. Singapore, as I have said, is
a key position. Some who are perhaps more internationally-minded in their outlook than patriotic to the Empire, see in any question of the defence and solidarity of the Empire a covert threat to somebody else. I have never been able to understand the attitude of mind which is always anxious to find fault with the suggestion that we should defend our own people, our own Empire and our own trade. This base is required first and foremost as a base from which the Navy can operate. It is an axiom which was borne out in the last War that, if you want to hinder a country's trade, you have first to capture that country's bases, and the converse is true. If you have trade to defend you must have bases from which your ships can operate in defence of that trade. Without such bases you cannot take effective steps to defend your trade.
Nobody has ever suggested that the British Navy is anything but a guarantee of world peace. It is a menace to nobody and has always stood first for the protection of the Empire, and then for upholding the liberties and the happiness of the peoples of the world. What would happen if we had not a base at Singapore? Do hon. Members realise the position? I wish they would study the distances in an atlas. At present if you wanted to refit a ship which was operating in Chinese waters you would have to bring that ship 6,000 miles to Malta for the purpose. Some hon. Members have suggested that Singapore would be a menace to other nations. The suggestion that it would be a menace to Japan is absurd. The distance from Singapore to Japan is 3,000 miles. Has anybody ever suggested that Hongkong is a menace to Japan even though it is 1,500 miles nearer to Japan than Singapore is? Why should Singapore be considered any greater menace to Japan than Japan is to Singapore? Nobody would suggest that Portsmouth is a menace to the United States, but the distance from Portsmouth to the United States is the same as the distance from Singapore to Japan. The idea that Singapore would be a menace to the United States is too absurd to require discussion.
The fundamental necessity for this base is the defence of commerce in the East and the defence of our Empire in the
East should a conflagration arise. I do not think that any hon. Member in this House desires such a contingency. Then this base would be a vital necessity, but the best way to prevent a conflagration is to take steps to meet it adequately should it arise. The right hon. Member for South Molton mentioned, I gathered with pride, that he was one of those who had been responsible when in office, for the creation of Rosyth. Had he been at Rosyth in the early days of the War, he might have heard some comments about hon. and right hon. Members in positions of authority in the Government of that day who had so badly done their work that the base was only half ready when the War broke out.
The record of the Socialist Government in 1924 in this matter is apparently going to be repeated. May I quote from the speech of the Parliamentary and Financial Secretary to the Admiralty on the 14th March last in this House, in which he said:
I want to enter a protest on behalf of the Opposition—I am sure that I can say that with perfect safety—against the further continuance of this scheme. I still look upon it as an absolute waste of money, altogether apart from the suspicion which it is likely to raise in the minds of other nations."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th March, 1929; col. 1323, Vol. 226.]
Then he went on to say:
One recognises that in large measure this scheme has gone forward in the last four or five years. This is a matter for extreme regret, and I think that it will not be many years before we shall find that it is an absolute waste of money which could have been better spent in other directions, and that the Singapore project will remain a cause of irritation and suspicion on the part of the other nations of the world."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th March, 1929; col. 1324, Vol. 226.]
If those were the opinions of Members of His Majesty's Government when they were in Opposition, it is reasonable to suppose that they are the opinions of His Majesty's Government now that they are in power. I cannot see from the replies which we have had in this House to various questions which have been put that there is any change of belief or of heart. Questions have been put, and we have never had flat or fair answers to them. I have asked whether any criticism has been made or protest entered by the Dominions or Colonies at the de-
cision of His Majesty's Government to slow down the work. We know that the orders were given before the Dominions were consulted, and I asked the Prime Minister—and I would be glad if I could have an answer now—if either the Dominions or the Colonies have in fact entered a protest, since the orders were given, to the effect that they objected to those orders being given.
One thing that emerges is this: It is obvious that this base will be a pawn in the Five Powers Conference, and I suggest that the Government are treating the Dominions in this matter with the scantiest of courtesy. Before the Government make up their mind to do away with the idea of this base, I would suggest that they should read a little history. The possession or the non-possession of a base has, in the past, resulted in the whole destinies of the world being changed. Between the years 1744 and 1762 the whole futures of Great Britain and of France hung in the balance. Louis XIV, King of France, chose the military and continental policy of Louvois in preference to the policy of trade expansion and maritime supremacy of Colbert. France had extensive overseas Dominions, large possessions abroad, and an enormous trade with her Colonies in Canada, and there, at the mouth of the St. Lawrence, she had a base, Louisbourg, on Cape Breton Island, which was the key to the St. Lawrence, Quebec, and Montreal. That base was captured by us in 1745, and I would invite attention to this fact. It was captured by a naval force under Admiral Warren who was assisted by a force of 4,000 American Colonists from Massachussets and New Hampshire, led by Colonel William Pepperell, a shipbuilder, of New Hampshire. In 1748, when peace was made, France realised that Louisbourg was the key to Canada, and, in order to get it back, she vacated Flanders for the possession of which she had fought. The Government of the day decided to give back Louisbourg to France.
They may or may not have been right in their decision, but they gave it back without consulting the Colonists of North America, and it may well be that the seeds of distrust and irritation which were sown in 1748 by this surrender of a base, which was realised to be vital by the North American Colonists, without a
word to them, were the seeds which afterwards fructified into the War of Independence. In 1758 Louisbourg was recaptured, and its possession meant for us the possession of Canada. It is interesting in passing to consider what might have happened if France had retained it. She would have maintained the whole of her trade with Canada, and it might well have been that the French flag might now be waving over the whole of America from Hudson Bay to Panama. The trade which sea power would have given France would have made her people so prosperous and contented that there might well have been no French Revolution. One Government in the past made the mistake of flouting the Dominions and Colonies, with disastrous results, and I suggest that this Government should pause before flouting the clearly expressed wishes of the Dominions and Colonies with regard to Singapore.
In conclusion, I would like to quote what a Frenchman once said:
the trident of Neptune is the sceptre of the world.
that sceptre cannot be wielded unless you have not only a navy, but adequate bases from which that navy can operate when it is wanted. I suggest to the Government that if they give up the idea of this essential base, if they even retard its proper development, not only will they be flouting the distinctly expressed wishes of the Dominions and Colonies, but they will also be neglecting the lessons of history and deliberately jeopardising the safety and security of the Empire, of the people who dwell in it, and of the trade by which we all live.

Mr. AMERY: I rise not in order to prolong the Debate, nor to repeat the arguments that have been so effectively used in the interesting speeches delivered on the benches behind me, and by my hon. Friend on this bench, but rather to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty a question on this matter directly affecting the Naval Conference which is to meet next month. We all, on whatever side of the House we may sit, wish that that Conference shall succeed. I think we should all welcome the very largest measure of disarmament which that Conference can achieve, as long as it is disarmament on fair lines. At the same time, I think there are certain factors
which will remain in the situation, whatever degree of disarmament is achieved. To whatever strength our Navy may be reduced, after this Conference, it will still require bases in order to be mobile. Whatever may happen at the Disarmament Conference, the British Empire will remain geographically distributed as it is at present. Whatever happens at that Conference, the obligation upon every part of the Empire to co-operate with every other part in defence remains unimpaired, and upon us, as the most important partner in the Empire, that remains a major obligation. Therefore, I suggest that, whatever the outcome of the Conference, whatever degree of disarmament we may hope to attain, it is essential that there should emerge from the Conference an undiminished power and right on the part of this country to co-operate with every other part of the Empire, and not least with the Dominions in the Southern Hemisphere, in our common defence.
The question, therefore, which I should like to address to the First Lord is simply this: Whether this base, which is admittedly indispensable if we are to have any kind of naval co-operation with Australia and New Zealand; indispensable if we are to do anything to help the defence of Australia and New Zealand against any attack, from whichever direction it may come; indispensable if we are to cover the trade of those Dominions and of all the British possessions in the Indian Ocean—whether the right to maintain that base is to be made a bargaining counter at the forthcoming conference, or is to be regarded as one of those lesser matters which, for the sake of a gesture, can be abandoned to others, and not maintained, as it ought to be, as an essentially internal matter of British Empire security, which it is not for us to discuss with the outside world?

The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. A. V. Alexander): It is advisable in the very few minutes which I shall occupy that I should try to bring the Debate back to its proper perspective. We have had two or three speeches which seem to range over the question of the whole policy of naval building, which is a very different question from that of the naval base at Singapore. The position to-day is not such as would justify a De-
bate covering that range of ground at this time. Indeed, I am not at all sure from the point of view put by the right hon. Member for South Molton (Mr. Lambert), that the most ardent advocates of a base at Singapore are helping themselves very much by their remarks this morning. The real position is this, that we are just coming to what is perhaps—I will not say perhaps, but what I hope to be the most epoch-making naval conference the world has ever seen. If that conference is to be as successful, as I gather that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Sparkbrook (Mr. Amery) thinks that men of good will in all parties would desire it to be, it is obvious that you would have to consider very seriously any very large capital expenditures which might be involved in future, either in your naval or military defences, to see whether such capital expenditures were being wisely and properly arranged, having regard to any changed circumstances which might arise as a result of the conference.
That is the whole basis of the decision which has been taken by His Majesty's Government, and it has been communicated to the Dominions. On that, the hon. Baronet who opened the Debate asked whether, if we did not continue, we are prepared to refund the money which has been contributed by Dominions, Colonies and Dependencies, and which has been spent—he said—under false pretences. It is most unwise to use language like that in a Debate of this character, and very unfair after the categorical statement which has been made in the House by the Prime Minister in reply to questions, that, of course, no British Government dealing with such a matter as that would ever run away from their obligations. It has also been fully stated that if there were to be any large decisions over the whole area of the question of the Singapore Base, of course not only the Dominions, but the other contributing Colonies and Dependencies of the Empire, would be fully consulted. If the hon. Baronet had taken ordinary care before making such a statement, to read the answer in the OFFICIAL KEPORT, we might have been spared that. I want to impress on hon. Members opposite that surely it is not reasonable, in such an important matter, to try to create further suspicion or mistrust than is necessary for the purpose of creating party capital.

Sir G. PENNY: I most emphatically state that there is no desire on my part to create party capital out of this. I say that we should be betraying our trust to take money from them if we eventually close down the Singapore base. That was based on the question which I asked the First Lord as to whether they had been consulted at all in the decision which the Government have taken with regard to the slowing down proposals

Mr. ALEXANDER: The Government took this question into consideration as far back as June and July, and at that time quite full information was given to the Dominion Governments as to the lines along which His Majesty's Government would go; and they were promised, as they ought to have been promised, that if any further development took place, they would be immediately notified and consulted. When the decision was taken, and an announcement had to be made because of questions in the House, the Dominions were at once notified. We have had no protest from any of the Dominions, except one, which raised a question as to the answer to a supplementary question which I gave, a question of which I had had no notice. Since then, when the position was fully explained, we have had no further protest, because the Dominions trust His Majesty's Government quite fully on the pledges which have been given, that before any final decision is taken in this matter, they will be fully consulted.

Sir G. PENNY: Will the right hon. Gentleman let us know what that protest was in connection with?

Mr. ALEXANDER: I have already said that it was in regard to a supplementary answer which I gave. I am speaking from memory, and what I said at the time was that I had no reason to suppose that the general tone of my answer would be out of harmony with their immediate view. I added that I should like to let that matter rest until I had further time to deal with it. As a matter of fact, the whole of the latter part of my answer had not been cabled to the Dominion which complained, at the time they made their protest. When it was fully explained as to what the answer really meant, apparently they were quite content to trust the pledge of the
Government that, before any binding decision is taken, they will be fully consulted.

Rear-Admiral BEAMISH: Have the Dominions and Colonies definitely stated that they are in agreement with the action of His Majesty's Government in slowing down the progress of this base?

Mr. ALEXANDER: The point is that they will be fully consulted before any final decision is taken. The pledge has been given, and I really cannot go beyond that.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: What about the interim decisions?

Mr. ALEXANDER: I do not think I can give way again.

Sir B. FALLE: Will the right hon. Gentleman give the name of the Dominion?

Mr. ALEXANDER: No, I am not prepared to say any more about the point. I think that I have gone fairly far this morning.

Commander SOUTHBY: May I—

Mr. ALEXANDER: No, I must not give way again. I have given way quite enough already. There is only one other point to which, I think, I need reply, and that was put to me by the right, hon. Gentleman the late Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs. He asked, quite definitely whether I could say if this question of slowing down the Singapore Base was going to be used as a bargaining factor in the Five-Power Conference. An answer to that has been given already on behalf of His Majesty's Government in another place, on 18th December, and it was quite categorical. Under no circumstances will that decision of ours to slow down pending the result of the Conference be allowed to be used in any sense or form as a bargaining factor in the Five-Power Conference—in no way. The whole reason for our position is that if any expenditure of a large character such as I have referred to is to be made, it ought to be made with the wisest economy and with the most careful consideration of what the position will be as the result of such a large and important Conference as we are anticipating. And, of course, nothing will be allowed to arise at the Five-Power
Conference which will deny the right of the various constituent parts of the British Commonwealth of Nations of looking after their several interests; and I need hardly remind my right hon. Friend that every one of the Dominions concerned will be directly represented at the Five-Power Conference. I think that is all I need say at this juncture, and I will close by saying that I rather regret that upon Christmas Eve, when to-morrow morning we shall all be praying for peace and good will, when dealing with this subject, we have had a good many perhaps unnecessary references to warlike subjects.

Sir B. FALLE: I have a few minutes left before 1.30. The right hon. Gentleman has set a limit to this Debate. After having heard three or four excellent speeches he wants to limit it, and he hopes that at this epoch-making moment all men of good will, etc., will come together. We had a good many Christmas Eves on the Western Front and elsewhere, and the fighting was not less bitter because it was Christmas Eve. We are asked to make a gesture of peace and good will by discontinuing for a moment work on the Singapore Base. It would be of much more value, it seems to me, if other nations were to act in that spirit. Why should all the giving be on our side 1 I asked the right hon. Gentleman the name of the Dominion which protested, but he will not give it. I suppose it was not looked upon as of any value. We do not look upon it in that way. It has been stated by an hon. Member in the course of the discussion that if we were at war we should keep all our battleships at home. It will be cheerful news for New Zealand and Australia to know that if war comes we will look after ourselves first and keep our battleships at home, and that only after we have succeeded in driving off the enemy will we then allow them to go out there. That is very pleasant news on Christmas Eve. The Marxian Socialists have an idea that if a man is very rich we should take from him. The other nations of the world have exactly the same views with regard to the British Empire. They say we have too many populations subject to us, that too much of the inhabited globe owes us allegiance, and that we do not mean to defend it, and that they will take it from us.

NATIONAL FINANCE.

Mr. CHURCHILL: An arrangement has been made that this discussion of a naval matter should now come to an end and that for a brief interval another topic, finance, should take its place upon the stage. Let me begin by expressing to the Chancellor of the Exchequer my regrets at any personal inconvenience which I may have caused to him by the discharge of my Parliamentary duties. I know how heavy is the burden upon him and how short is the interval of leisure he has before he leaves for The Hague Conference on the 6th of January, and I am sorry if the inexorable course of events has led me to curtail that leisure by 48 hours. But I must say that I think the Chancellor of the Exchequer has had during his tenure of office a very great measure of good will, consideration and indulgence from his political opponents and all other sections of the community. I do not think I ever remember a case where so many men and women of opposite parties have been willing to accord the representative of the Government all the consideration in their power. He has been aided and flattered by the Conservative Press and the Liberal newspapers and he has been applauded and encouraged from other quarters of the political scene. He has been given the freedom of the City of London, as' we were all very glad to see, and to note that it was conferred so soon. In fact, I said to myself, "It is now or never," and the only argument against it which occurred to me was that the City will have nothing left to give him after the Budget. The great Lord Bacon said in his writings:
It is an assured sign of a worthy and generous spirit whom honour amends.
No one will deny the right hon. Gentleman's claim to the epithets, but one cannot help being struck by the fact that honour or good will do not seem to exercise upon him that mellowing and softening influence, that widening influence, which so often have attended them. In fact, the more he is treated with consideration and indulgence, the more honour he is shown, the more crapulous and dictatorial he becomes. It seems to me that as he does not respond to this extremely conciliatory treatment it may be well to try whether a change of treatment might not produce a more satisfactory result. If
praise and courtesy only result in narrow, bitter partisanship, perhaps a little well-merited chastisement may procure some geniality. Take my own case. The great Lord Bacon, to quote him again, in his essay on "Great Place," says:
Use the memory of thy predecessor fairly and tenderly; for if thou dost no …
I am glad to see the Leader of the Opposition here, because I know how he likes classical quotations. I will read it again. It is Bacon on "Great Place":
Use the memory of thy predecessor fairly and tenderly; for if thou dost not it is a debt that will sure be paid when thou art gone.
Following that wise example, when I succeeded the right hon. Gentleman as Chancellor of the Exchequer five years ago I was careful to pay a tribute to his work, and I am glad to know that that gave him pleasure and that he has preserved it as a testimonial and repeated it in the House of Commons with gusto. The right hon. Gentleman is welcome to any satisfaction which he has received from that tribute, and he has had no cause to complain of any attack which I have made upon him either in this House or in any part of the country, or in the Debates which occupy undoubtedly a large part of the financial year. I made no comment on his great achievement in regard to the loan, or to his gift of £150,000 to a favoured few, or to his writing down British credit to a figure which I am sure he would have been wise to have avoided formally presenting, labelling, and advertising to the world. The right hon. Gentleman, no doubt, feeling the stress and pressure, is evidently anxious to throw the blame of the difficulties in which he finds himself—allow me to say that he will not find me unwilling to take the responsibility for every difficulty in which I have a share—and of any added difficulties entirely on the shoulders of his predecessor.
In the course of the next few minutes I want to look a little more closely than we have hitherto done at the right hon. Gentleman's achievements and performances during the six months he has held the office of Chancellor of the Exchequer. I come, first of all, to the Hague Conference and Reparations. There the right hon. Gentleman carried on a policy which, as he rightly said, had been declared
beforehand as the policy of the British Government. There never could have been any question of our accepting the Young Report as it stood, and that intention was announced to the House of Commons by me before the Dissolution, and I was supported by the Chancellor of the Exchequer and all parties. I certainly considered that the right hon. Gentleman fought a very good fight in the interests of this country, but he fought it in such a rasping manner and in such a needlessly provocative way that I think it is possible that we have lost in other directions a good deal of the apparently small gains which resulted from the right hon. Gentleman's strenuous activities. I must explain, however, that they were not positive gains. The right hon. Gentleman succeeded in not giving away so much as he was asked to give, but he did, in fact, give away—I am not blaming him for it—more than had been given away in the arrangements conducted by the preceding Government of which he himself was such an unsparing denunciator.
The one serious criticism which I make against the right hon. Gentleman's conduct of these negotiations is that he did not take advantage of the great opportunity offered us to secure liberation from certain declarations which had been made. There is the Balfour Note. The House is familiar with the self-denying clauses, which are omitted in the Treaty agreement with Italy and France, which preclude us from taking any more from Europe than is taken from us to pay our debts to the United States of America, and binds us as regards any moneys that may be paid by Russia through any revision of her debt policy which may be made, or which is entertained by the United States, to give the benefit of that to those countries with whom we have made settlements. That is the principle of the Balfour Note. When the Balfour Note was proclaimed now nearly seven years ago none of the many high authorities in the Government of that day ever expected that its terms would be realised, and certainly no statesman like the late Mr. Bonar Law, Mr. Asquith, and others I could mention imagined that we should retrieve enough ourselves to pay these obligations. We have, in fact, almost achieved that but not entirely. The right hon. Gentleman was compelled
—and I do not blame him—to risk breaking up the Conference for £500,000 a year, and he was compelled to admit an impingement upon the Balfour Note. Although it may be a small impingement, undoubtedly the sanctity of that principle has been broken, and the right hon. Gentleman has consented to its being broken. There was an opportunity to obtain release from the self-denying obligations which we had made, and I should have thought it would have been quite easy at least to say to France and Italy: "Rather than break up the Conference, we will agree to the terms imposed, but it must be clearly understood that, as those terms violate the integrity of the Balfour Note, we claim release from the self-denying clauses, and, if at any time Russia settles her debts and obtains or takes some steps to achieve financial rehabilitation as she may do in years to come, and as it may be her interest to do, then the yield of that relief which may amount conceivably on the terms we gave Italy to £6,000,000, £7,000,000 or £8,000,000 a year and perhaps more, accruing to the British taxpayer should not go simply to reduce the payments of Italy and France.
Similarly, if the United States at any time chose to revise her debt policy and treat all her debtors equally—and there is undoubtedly a growing opinion in the United States in favour of equal treatment for her debtors—if that were so it would seem to be a great pity that we should not be able to gain that advantage because of these self-denying Clauses, for which, I fully admit, the right hon. Gentleman was not responsible, but for which the preceding Government was responsible, and for which I am undoubtedly one of those who have to bear responsibility. But here was a chance, here was an opportunity of getting free, and the right hon. Gentleman, fighting so strenuously as he did, seems to have overlooked this altogether, although I should like to say that I left it clearly on record, in various documents and statements which were made during my tenure of office, that it was my intention, if the slightest infringement of the Balfour Note were to become necessary, to take that opportunity for claiming release. I think that that is a fair and serious criticism. The right hon. Gentleman will have a chance of answering it, but
I hope he will not simply confine himself to belabouring me, because I think it is not too late—I hope it is not too late. He is going to the Hague Conference on the 6th January, and I suggest to him that there is still an opportunity, before matters are finally ratified, to point out that the conditions of the Balfour Note have been ruptured, and that a new situation has arisen. At any rate, I trust that that may be considered by His Majesty's Government, because it is of great and real importance to us.
The right hon. Gentleman attacked my financial record, but I am, under the Rules of the House, not permitted to refer, except in a broad, general and casual manner, to matters which have been raised in the Debates on the same subject in the same Session. All that I will say about the financial record of the late Government is that it is clearly within the recollection of all Members of the House of Commons. We were proceeding on a basis of reviving trade and returning prosperity. We were reducing taxation substantially. We were looking forward to further schemes of social amelioration. We were struck down by the general strike and the coal stoppage. I can recall no instance of any more deadly blow having been levelled at an administration by their political opponents than the launching of that hideous attack, not only upon the fortunes of the Government, but upon the whole prosperity of the nation. The right hon. Gentleman seems to forget all about that. One would imagine that he had never heard of it. Where was he when the general strike was on? I think I have asked that question before. Where was he when that great event took place? He, a leading man, one of the pillars of the Socialist Party, of the Labour Party—where did he go? Why, Sir, he went into hiding. He chose the deepest hole he could find, and, in the darkest recesses of that deep hole, he remained till the fight was over, and' then he emerged to throw the blame on others, to exploit the new situation, and to lecture all sides with that impartiality and smug complacency which only finds its rival in the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Darwen (Sir H. Samuel), in his performance last night. Others had to face the situation which resulted from the general strike and the coal stoppage, and all the rest of my
tenure at the Exchequer was occupied in endeavouring to cut through those difficulties without throwing new and heavy burdens on a slowly recovering country.
Whatever may be the unsatisfactory condition of the Exchequer at the present time—and I have no knowledge of what it may be at the present time, nor indeed is it profitable to speculate upon such matters until the out-turn of the year is seen and can be measured—whatever may be the condition of the Exchequer, the right hon. Gentleman has added to his difficulties by agreeing to new and profuse expenditure. He, who used to lecture us upon every penny that was spent, has already, in the short six months he has been in power, added £8,500,000—I am taking the answer he gave to a question—to the expenditure of this year. Whereas in former years I had succeeded in clawing back from the Departments £5,000,000 or £6,000,000 of money actually voted by Parliament, this year, so far from that process operating, there is a new outlet of £8,500,000 of expenditure, and, as the prospective Budget surplus was fixed only, if my memory serves me rightly, at £3,500,000, and as the conditions of the present time certainly do not look too favourable, one must say that a deficit is inevitable from that cause alone, even if it had not arisen in consequence of world causes. But about future years, what has the right hon. Gentleman committed us to? In his answer a few weeks ago he quoted a figure of, I think, nearly £19,000,000, but a great deal has happened since then. He and his colleagues have revised their view as to what should be the conditions under which unemployment benefit should be extended to persons who are in need of it, or who profess that they are in need of it. The right hon. Gentleman has sanctioned a large scheme of lengthening the period of school-time for the youth of this country, and I imagine—I have not the exact figures—that certainly the new commitments which he has made, at a time when he admits that matters are upon a very narrow basis, will amount to £30,000,000. The "Times" newspaper, which is so frequently quoted from the opposite benches—I think very rightly, because it is a most valuable and weighty support and encouraging comfort—in a leading
article last week, said that the new expenditure commitments amount to £43,000,000 a year. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will tell us, when he rises to speak, how much actual additional expenditure he has let this country in for during his six months tenure of office.
I should like to point out that for this expenditure, although it all falls upon the Treasury, there is very little to show, and it is in no way concerned, or is scarcely appreciably concerned, with any large productive effort which would stimulate the trade and industry of the country. The right hon. Gentleman has said, in one of his moods of self-satisfaction, that it will take him three or four years to get the finances of this country back into the good state in which he left them. He was only in office for a few months on the last occasion. He inherited a surplus of £40,000,000 from his Conservative predecessor. He spent that surplus, as far as he could see, with a desire to gain for himself party election advantages, and he left a somewhat smaller surplus to his successor. Now he hopes to work back to 1924, and he says it will take him three or four years of hard work to bring himself back to that position. If he goes on as he is going now, with £30,000,000 or £40,000,000 of additional unproductive expenditure flung upon the Exchequer during six months of his tenure of office, it will take him three or four years to complete his task, and, when he has completed it in his opinion, the annual expenditure of this country will not be far short of £1,000,000,000.
I have one point with which I must deal for a moment in detail, namely, the right hon. Gentleman's continued harping upon the alleged or so-called bankruptcy of the Unemployment Insurance Fund. He declares that the bankruptcy of the Unemployment Insurance Fund is due to the policy which was pursued by me and by my right hon. Friend the late Minister of Labour, and he attributes the condition of the Fund entirely to that policy. We have a Report from an impartial authority on that subject, and I will venture to ask the House to permit me to read a very short quotation from it. This Report was published in 1927; it is the Report of the Blanesburgh Committee; and this is what it says at paragraph 63:
We are now confronted by an embarrassing problem which, when we began our deliberations, did not exist. In the first place, the deficit on the Unemployment Fund was then being paid off satisfactorily. With steadily improving trade, the income of the fund was increasing and its expenditure going down. The general strike and the stoppage in the coal-mining industry have changed that situation. The resulting unemployment, as we have seen, increased the indebtedness of the fund from £7,100,000 in April last to over £21,000,000 in December, and there is no prospect that this heavy debt can be liquidated by the time when the new scheme should come into force. In the second place, these industrial disturbances have brought about a marked deterioration in the economic position of the country and have greatly increased for a time the general level of unemployment. At the end of April there were 982,000 persons unemployed; at the beginning of December the figure had risen to 1,506,000.
That is the Blanesburgh Report. The first signature is that of the Chairman and the second is that of the right hon. Lady who is now the Minister of Labour. In view of the clear expression of opinion on these matters by one of his own colleagues, I think the right hon. Gentleman'.s attempt to throw the blame for the bankruptcy of the Unemployment Insurance Fund on me and my friends on this side of the House really requires some reconsideration before it is persisted in. At any rate, I leave him to settle with the Minister of Labour, when he next has the good fortune to see her, how he is to reconcile the attack which he made recently with the perfectly clear explanation she has given of the causes of the misfortune to the Unemployment Insurance Fund.
2.0 p.m.
I must say I think the right hon. Gentleman in his treatment of this Unemployment Insurance Fund has perhaps not taken the course which would most conduce to the general welfare of the country. He has advertised and emphasised one cause of its bankruptcy, but even after the General Strike, even in the present lamentable condition of our affaire, it is not true that the Unemployment Insurance Fund was in a state of bankruptcy. Here is a fund which had an annual revenue of between £60,000,000 and £70,000,000, resulting from separate sources of taxation, and which had a debt of £40,000,000. But I do not think £40,000,000, or £50,000,000, would have been too heavy a charge to accumulate at the back of a Fund with such an enormous annual revenue as that. It
does not even amount to one year's annual revenue. Look at our own affairs. We have a debt of over £7,000,000,000, that is to say our debt is eight or nine times our annual revenue and, therefore, if the Insurance Fund is in a state of bankruptcy, we are seven or eight times more in bankruptcy. [Interruption.] Very little is foreign debt. It may well prove—I will not put it higher, because the right hon. Gentleman has his own difficulties to solve and I know how great they are and how anxious his task is, but it seems to me that he might well have found it prudent not to deal immediately with the increased contribution of the Exchequer to the Unemployment Insurance Fund and to have left the whole situation until he could examine it as a whole with the out turn of the financial year. It may well be that the fund could have risen to £50,000,000 of debts to the State without the disclosure of a deficit in the national accounts and the consequent need of heavy over-taxation.
Here is a point that is borne in upon me by a study of the right hon. Gentleman's methods. It seems to me that he is making a case, by administrative action and by policy, for heaping new vindictive penal taxation of the kind he has spoken of before in such strident and ferocious terms, of a kind which is calculated to raise the spirit and the appetite and the ardour of his followers, and to be of use to him for political purposes and, therefore, no doubt, it would be to his interest to throw whatever burden he can find upon the Exchequer at the same time that he is adding to heavy expenditure, and then claiming that a case has been made out for another large addition to the public burden.
I come now to the last point that I am going to afflict the right hon. Gentleman with, but that is the most important of all. Yesterday he announced to the House and the country his intention to repeal the McKenna, the Silk and the Safeguarding Duties and, somewhat less decisively, the Sugar Duties. I am glad to say he does not contradict me in the interpretation I put upon his answer.

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Philip Snowden): I will do.

Mr. CHURCHILL: What other interpretation can be put upon the language
he used and the declaration he made? Surely we are not going to be told he only made that statement out of personal vanity, in order to keep these important industries on tenterhooks at his footstool, waiting upon his imperial finger, just in order to say, "You will know what your fate is when my good pleasure is declared." Surely we cannot have that. I should never have accused him of that. It would amount to a callous levity to which there is no parallel in the conduct of public affairs—these great trades all kept hanging about after a statement like that has been made and then, when the Budget comes, to say, "I am glad to announce to you an eleventh hour reprieve. We have decided not to take off the taxes this year, but, of course, I had to keep this as my Budget secret." To let personal considerations of that kind intermingle themselves with the means by which the livelihood of thousands of workmen and the conduct of important businesses are interwoven would be entirely beneath any misconduct I should ever think it right to attribute to the right hon. Gentleman. So, wishing to give him the benefit of the doubt, I take his statement at its clear face value, that he intends to repeal, at any rate, the McKenna, Silk and Safeguarding Duties. If what he said yesterday is the last word he has to speak upon this subject, if he has no further statement to make to-day, I say all these trades, if they are wise, should act from now upon the assumption that the duties are going to be repealed.
There was the right hon. Gentleman's manner, besides his words. It is within the full recollection of the House that he spoke as if he had a personal grievance against these trades, as if, because they had been protected by a tariff, they had done him some wrong and ought to be punished. The whole tenor of his statement was that it served them right, that those who live by a tariff shall fall and suffer by a tariff. I can assure him it is not the fault of the trades. They never asked for this tariff—[Interruption.] I know about this. I re-imposed the McKenna Duties without consulting these trades and the silk duties, so far from being asked for by the trade, were vehemently protested against. Messrs. Courtaulds issued a pamphlet against them. He has no grievance against these trades. If he
has any spite to display or vengeance to wreak, let him do it on me. I am responsible; let him punish me if he can, but not work off these feeling of antagonism upon organisms of great importance in the provision of work and wages to our people.
"His manner" I say, but what shall I say of his motive? It is always difficult to plumb motives, and it may be dangerous to impute them. Was it only pedantry that actuated his statement yesterday? I have asked myself if it is free trade conviction. Up to a fortnight ago, I should have rested content with that explanation. Everyone knows that he has always been in the past a bigoted Cobdenite, but, after the publication of the Government Coal Bill, of which the right hon. Gentleman is one of the responsible authors, and which was rightly described from the Liberal benches—and the Liberals are impartial judges—as one of the worst forms of protection, he has certainly no right to plead his unalterable free trade convictions as a reason for his intolerance in this respect.
I accuse the right hon. Gentleman in abolishing these duties of being actuated by motives of political calculation. He is seeking to drive a wedge between the two parties of the Opposition. He is seeking to gain support for the future Budget that he will have to introduce, and, in pursuit of these purely political objects, he does not care a snap of the fingers for the fact that 20,000 more men may be thrown into unemployment. I wonder what the Lord Privy Seal thinks about it all. It seems to me that he is being given what is vulgarly called the dirty end of the stick. First of all, the definition of unemployment is extended in such a way as to swamp the register with scores and perhaps hundreds of thousands of new figures, and then a measure is taken by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the hope of securing the political defences of his Budget, which undoubtedly is going to throw a large number of men out of employment very speedily, and which, in its depressing influence over the whole range of industry, is bound to have further indirect adverse effects.
I do not intend to detain the House any more. I had no wish to make these reflections. We are going to separate very shortly. It is not a very cheerful or bright Christmas that England is going to celebrate this year, our first
Christmas under a Socialist Government. Prices have risen; the tendency of wages is to decline; unemployment has risen; there is great financial disquiet, for which I do not blame the right hon. Gentleman, but which nevertheless has a serious effect. We can see that the recovery of other nations from the Great War has been far more rapid and substantial than our own. The menace, nay, the certainty, of heavy new direct taxation hangs over the country in the New Year. Here, where the burden of direct taxation is already the heaviest in the world, £30,000,000, £40,000,000, or £50,000,000 are to be added to it at a time when Germany, the United States, and, I believe France, are reducing taxation by approximately similar amounts with the direct intention and avowed purpose of increasing their commercial competition with us.
In the Coal Bill, through private agency it is true, new indirect taxation is to be imposed if that Measure passes, and the right hon. Gentleman is just as responsible for that tax, although it may be collected by the coalowners, as he would have been if it had been imposed in the Budget. Between £30,000,000 and £40,000,000 will be added to indirect taxation. Before us in the New Year lies a vista of political turmoil, and, possibly, or rather probably, a momentous General Election. All this political strife and excitement cannot fail to be a drag upon every financial and business force which is making for the growth and strengthening of the Commonwealth. I spoke yesterday of the slow but sure undermining of our position throughout the East, which, let me say, is of vital consequence to the livelihood, to the bread and butter, of millions in this country.
It is a gloomy prospect, a bleak and gloomy prospect, and I think it is hard upon our country that, 11 years after the Great War and the great victory, and after we have done our best, paid our debts, and faced our burdens manfully and charitably, and done all that we can to bring the country together, we should have from one cause or another—the blame no doubt rests not in any one quarter—to face so melancholy a prospect. Britain has deserved better fortune and the only consolation I can offer
her on this occasion is that we have at least the remedy for all our evils in our own hands.

Mr. P. SNOWDEN: The right hon. Gentleman need not have apologised to the House for occupying such a length of time. His speech was very appropriate to the occasion. This is the season of pantomime. I have very great admiration for the courage of the right hon. Gentleman. I am sorry that I cannot extend my admiration to his wisdom and his discretion. The country, he says, remembers the financial record of the late Government, and I should have thought that that recollection would have prevented the right hon. Gentleman from raising this question this afternoon. I gladly admit the claim which the right hon. Gentleman made in the earlier part of his speech that he has always treated me with the greatest courtesy and consideration.
I will try to deal—and I will not detain the House at any great length, because I know that there are Members who wish to raise other questions—with all the points which the right hon. Gentleman has raised. He began by a reference to the Hague Conference in August last, and, after paying me a compliment, went on to complain that I had not taken full advantage of the opportunities which that Conference presented for getting liberation from the terms of the Balfour Note. This is a strange position for the right hon. Gentleman to take up. He stood here not more than eight months ago proclaiming the sanctity of the Balfour Note and declaring that under no circumstance would this country ever ask to be relieved from the embarrassments of that Note. Now he complains that I went to the Hague and did not seek liberation from these embarrassments, and we are to infer that, if the last Government had remained in Office and the right hon. Gentleman had gone to The Hague that there he, swallowing everything that he had said three months before about the sanctity of the Balfour Note, would have demanded the liberation of this country from its onerous terms.
The right hon. Gentleman said that he had stated to the House that the Government would not accept the conclusions of the Young Report. He did no such thing. What the right hon. Gentleman did say was that the Government would
not accept terms which it was rumoured some months before the report was issued that the Committee were considering. The right hon. Gentleman accepts that. What the right hon. Gentleman said in the House of Commons was that the Government would not accept the terms which it was rumoured were going to be obligatory under the Young Report, but that was very different from the final recommendations of the Young Report. The Young Report gave cover for our payments to America. That is to say, it gave, including reparations and receipts from Allied debts, sufficient to meet our future payments to America, and to that extent it conformed to the terms of the Balfour Note. What I asked for at the Hague was something more than that, and it was something more than that which I succeeded in getting. I got £2,000,000 a year more than the debt cover, and that £2,000,000 a year for a period of 37 years produces £74,000,000 which will go to that extent to meet the arrears upon the American debt. The right hon. Gentleman complained about my rasping manner. If the right hon. Gentleman had adopted something of my manner in the debt negotiations he had with France and with Italy he might have made with them settlements much more favourable than he did.
I turn to other points which were raised by the right hon. Gentleman. Once again, the right hon. Gentleman attributes all his difficulties to the coal stoppage and the General Strike. The right hon. Gentleman's misfortunes from 1926 to 1929 were not at all attributable to the coal stoppage. The right hon. Gentleman's difficulties began long before that, and he himself has admitted the source of his later difficulties. He referred to the surplus which he inherited from me, a Budget with a surplus of nearly £30,000,000. I had a surplus inherited from the previous Government. The right hon. Gentleman said that I used that surplus in order to satisfy my friends and to gain popularity. What did the right hon. Gentleman do with his surplus? Of course, I will not for a moment say that in disposing of that surplus the right hon. Gentleman had his own political friends in mind; no, not in the least! He was relieving the Super-taxpayers to the extent of £10,000,000 a year. [Interruption.] It never occurred to him
that these were his friends when he reduced the Income Tax by £30,000,000 a year. It never occurred to him that these taxpayers were his political friends. The right hon. Gentleman was not justified in making those remissions of taxation in 1925, and, as he himself has admitted, all these financial difficulties arose from the squandering of revenue which he knew, or he ought to have known, he would require in subsequent years. My complaint about the right hon. Gentleman's financial policy is that he has been living from hand to mouth. He has been borrowing when he ought to have put on taxation.
Take the coal subsidy. The right' hon. Gentleman provided £19,000,000 by means of Supplementary Estimates in one year. If he had adopted methods of sound finance, he would have raised that sum by additional taxation, but, instead of doing that, he robbed every reserve upon which he could lay his hands. As I pointed out the other day, the right hon. Gentleman incurred liabilities which he never met out of permanent revenue amounting to £95,000,000. That is a very moderate estimate. The actual figure is very much higher than that. His raids amounted to more than £50,000,000. I did not include in that £95,000,000 the £13,000,000 which he took from the currency note reserve. I have to make up those deficiencies incurred by the right hon. Gentleman.
The right hon. Gentleman's policy has always been that of the prodigal taking no thought for the morrow. I am convinced that the right hon. Gentleman never expected to face the House of Common with another Budget. He had got to the end of his resources, and, if he had been here next year, he would have been compelled to impose additional taxation and thus expose his defalcations. The right hon. Gentleman's financial methods have been such that had his Budgets been company balance sheets he would have found himself in the dock. A few more words about the right hon. Gentleman's financial record. I have said that he raided capital resources to the extent of £50,000,000.

Mr. CHURCHILL: Will the right hon. Gentleman give details?

Mr. SNOWDEN: I will give the right hon. Gentleman every item if he wishes them.

Mr. CHURCHILL: Brewers' credit.

Mr. SNOWDEN: Yes, brewers' credit. His forestalments of revenue were included with raids in the speech to which the right hon. Gentleman has been replying to-day. He transferred from the Road Fund £19,000,000. He reduced the period for brewers' credit, which brought in £10,000,000. He forestalled Schedule A, amounting to over £14,000,000. He could not have that revenue twice—

Mr. CHURCHILL: You could not have the General Strike twice.

Mr. SNOWDEN: Unclaimed dividends, £1,000,000. Then he took into the Exchequer principal repayment of Dominions loans, which amounted to £3,000,000. He has never met the Sinking Fund obligation. He never even fulfilled the statutory figure of £50,000,000 per year which was fixed by his predecessor, the late Prime Minister. He actually paid in four years only £181,000,000 to the Sinking Fund, whereas he ought to have paid, including the addition he got from the Currency Note Reserve, £240,000,000. His deficits will have to be made up some time if the credit of the country is to be made good. There are other legacies from the right hon. Gentleman. There is the de-rating and there is widows' pensions. There again we have further instances of the right hon. Gentleman's financial methods. He acted on the principle of paying nothing to-day if he could avoid it, postponing it in the hope that his demise would occur and that somebody else would have to meet the deficiency. What did he do about widows' pensions? He began to take contributions before the pensions began to be paid, and in the early years there was a surplus of contributions over benefits.

Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE: Rather good business that.

Mr. SNOWDEN: Is it? Good business for the right hon. Gentleman. Would it be good business for the Chancellor of the Exchequer in 1936? The right hon. Gentleman fixed £4,000,000 a year as the Exchequer contribution up to 1936 and pensions had to be paid out of the surplus which had accumulated. He fixed the sum at £4,000,000 a year for 10 years, with the result that in 1936 there would have been a jump to an average of £13,500,000 for the next ten years.

Mr. CHURCHILL: Surely, the right hon. Gentleman will complete his statement by stating what would have been the decline in the War pensions in that same period.

Mr. SNOWDEN: I do not quite understand what the right hon. Gentleman means.

Mr. CHURCHILL: I showed most clearly when I introduced the finance of that scheme that the growth of the Exchequer payments for the widows' pension scheme would be balanced, and more than balanced, by the run-off from year to year on the War pensions charges.

Mr. SNOWDEN: As a matter of fact, it has not been so. The decline in War pensions has not been such as to cove, the amount which would have been required for the Exchequer contributions to meet the obligations to the widows' and orphans' pensions scheme. The result of the right hon. Gentleman's finance would have been such that in 1936 the Exchequer would have had to raise its contributions to the widows' and orphans' scheme from £4,000,000 to £13,500,000. That is part of the increased expenditure to which the right hon. Gentleman has called attention. The Exchequer in 1936 would have been compelled to increase the Exchequer contribution by £9,500,000 a year, but instead of having to do that in 1936 we are providing an additional sum of £1,000,000 each year so that it will not be necessary at any time to raise the amount beyond that annual increase. How is the increased expenditure to which the Government are committed, made up? It is made up practically entirely by meeting the shortcomings of the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. CHURCHILL: I should like to have particulars.

Mr. SNOWDEN: If the right hon. Gentleman wants figures, I will give them. The increased expenditure is made up mainly by the charge for unemployment insurance. We shall have to meet in respect of 1929 some £7,500,000 for unemployment insurance, and next year the sum will amount to £14,000,000. There will be practically no increased expenditure for this year on account of the Widows' and Orphans' Contributory Pensions Act, except a small sum of £40,000, but next year the increased expenditure will amount to over
£5,300,000. The other items which make up the increased expenditure of this year are comparatively small. The only one of any considerable amount is in respect of the Civil Service bonus, which amounts to £800,000.

Mr. CHURCHILL: Will the right hon. Gentleman explain a little further how he is avoiding the jump in 1936 by his new Widows' and Orphans' Pensions grants? I understand that the Widows' and Orphans' (Contributory) Pensions Bill was to give wider and new benefits, and was not at all to meet the deficiency in 1936, which matures on the old and previously declared commitment.

Mr. SNOWDEN: We are giving an extra sum of £1,000,000 a year in addition to the amount required for the new pensions, in order to avoid the jump in 1936.

Mr. CHURCHILL: So that it will be a jump from £5,000,000 to £13,000,000, instead of from £4,000,000 to £13,000,000.

Mr. SNOWDEN: It will be £5,000,000, £6,000,000, £7,000,000, £8,000,000, £9,000,000—an additional million pounds each year. I turn now to the right hon. Gentleman's criticism of our contributions to the Unemployment Fund. The right hon. Gentleman quoted from the Blanesburgh Report of 1927, but this story did not begin in 1927; it began in 1925 and 1926, when the right hon. Gentleman reduced the State contribution to the Unemployment Fund, and reduced all other contributions. He reduced the contributions to the Unemployment Fund by £10,000,000 a year. If that had not been done, the cost of the increased calls in respect of Unemployment Insurance could have been entirely met, and there would not have been one penny of debt on the Unemployment Fund to-day. The right hon. Gentleman is not aware of that.

Mr. CHURCHILL: Yes.

Mr. SNOWDEN: Not one penny of debt would there have been on the Unemployment Fund to-day. The fact that we are to contribute next year £14,000,000 to the Unemployment Insurance Fund and about £7,500,000 to that Fund this year, is attributable to the raids which the right hon. Gentleman made upon the Fund in 1925 and 1926. I am having to bear in this respect the right hon. Gentleman's sins. I want the country to know this:
that practically the whole of the increased expenditure we shall have to meet this year is not on account of our own commitments, but on account of commitments for which the party opposite are responsible, and apart from the increase in widows' pensions, practically all of the increased expenditure there may be next year is to meet obligations incurred by the Government which preceded us. If the right hon. Gentleman wants particulars, I can give them.

Mr. CHURCHILL: I do not want to press the right hon. Gentleman now for particulars because we shall be discussing these matters again. I do not want to burden his statement with undue detail.

Mr. SNOWDEN: The right hon. Gentleman can take my statement as being the fact that practically the whole of the increased expenditure this year with the exception of that £800,000 Civil Service bonus is due to the late Government and with the exception of the increased cost of widows' pensions practically all the increased expenditure next year will be to meet commitments and liabilities for which the party opposite are responsible.

Mr. CHURCHILL: I dispute that.

Mr. SNOWDEN: We will have it out later.

Mr. CHURCHILL: You have given nothing to the unemployed and nothing to the widows.

Mr. SNOWDEN: Really I give the right hon. Gentleman credit for more intelligence than a stranger would be inclined to give him after hearing a statement like that. He says that we are giving nothing to the unemployed. We are giving to the fund the sum which the late Government ought to have given if it had not been for the raids which were perpetrated by the right hon. Gentleman. Let me remind him again of the fact that he robbed the Unemployment Fund of a revenue of £10,000,000 a year. If the revenue had been maintained at the figure at which it was in 1925 instead of there being a debt of nearly £40,000,000 to-day, there would not have been one penny of debt and therefore any increase of benefit and all the Amendments which have been incorporated in the Unemployment Insurance Bill could have been met out of the unexhausted borrowing powers.

Mr. CHURCHILL: The right hon. Gentleman has used the word "robbed." May I impress upon him the fact that what I did was to reduce the contribution of the employers and workpeople and to reduce the contributions of the State. And I did so entirely when the condition of the fund fully warranted it. Those conditions were violently altered by the general strike.

Mr. SNOWDEN: The right hon. Gentleman's observation shows his abyssmal ignorance of this question. I am not surprised at what he did in 1926 because it is perfectly evident that he grossly misunderstands this problem. The right hon. Gentleman need not be so much upset. He, not I, asked for this Debate, and therefore he must take his gruel.
The right hon. Gentleman last of all turned to the statement I made the other day in regard to the Sugar Duties, Silk Duties and the McKenna and Safeguarding Duties, and as usual he began by wholly misrepresenting what I said. I made no statement that I should repeal the McKenna Duties; that I should repeal the Silk Duties or that I should abolish the Sugar Duty. I very distinctly said that I could make no statement beyond what had already been made until the Budget. The position of the Government on this question has been very clearly stated, and it ought to be known even to the right hon. Gentleman. I have stated the position and I repeat it, that we shall repeal these duties at the earliest practicable opportunity. We shall decide the "earliest practicable opportunity," and I shall follow the invariable custom. I say invariable, but I am not quite sure if there are not exceptions because the right hon. Gentleman never introduced a Budget into this House the contents of which had not become public property some time before the Budget was introduced.

Mr. CHURCHILL: That is on a par with most of your statements.

Mr. SNOWDEN: The attitude of the Government to this question has been clearly stated. The duties will be repealed if we remain in office, at the earliest practicable opportunity. We shall renew none of the purely Safeguarding Duties when they expire. In that matter we shall honour the pledge of the Leader
of the Opposition, that these duties will not be renewed after the expiration of the five years. I said nothing in my statement to justify the right hon. Gentleman in saying that I announced that I was going to repeal the Duties. The right hon. Gentleman must restrain his impatience. He will know when the Budget is introduced.

Mr. CHURCHILL: I am thinking of the trades.

Mr. SNOWDEN: I am amazed at his anxiety for the trades. Whenever did he show any regard for them? He introduced his Silk Duties without ever consulting the trade, and he knows into what a state of chaos these Duties threw that trade for a time. And have they been a success? Hon. Members opposite who are interested in financial matters have doubtless seen in some newspapers to-day the report of one of these artificial silk companies. I suppose they are aware of the fact that the shares of the largest of these concerns have dropped heavily during the last 12 months? I suppose they will take all this as an indication of the great prosperity which the right hon. Gentleman's Duties have brought to the silk industry. The right hon. Gentleman is far too ready to jump to conclusions. He jumped very rapidly yesterday to a conclusion. The moment I sat down the right hon. Gentleman rose and said:
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that by his menacing statement he has redoubled the anxiety and uncertainty.
The right hon. Gentleman made that statement within five seconds of the conclusion of my statement. How did he know that my menacing statement had redoubled the anxiety and uncertainty of these trades? The trades which are interested in these matters were not then even aware of my statement. Yet the right hon. Gentleman jumped to the conclusion that it had doubled their uncertainty and their anxiety.
The right hon. Gentleman repeated in precise words a statement which he has made more than once in the course of our Debates, and that is that he attributed my attitude in these matters simply to political motives. I can quite understand the right hon. Gentleman attributing it to political motives, because the right hon. Gentleman never did anything in
his political life except in the hope of deriving some political and personal advantage. The right hon. Gentleman sneers at me as a bigoted Cobdenite. When did he cease to be a Cobdenite? I know that he told us a few months ago that he was both a Free Trader and a Safeguarder. The right hon. Gentleman can accommodate himself to anything. He is not a bigoted Free Trader now; he is not a bigoted Safeguarder. The right hon. Gentleman's attitude about bigoted Free Traders reminds me of a story of a woman who was flirting on an Atlantic liner, and the man asked her if she was a married woman. "Yes," she said, "but I am not a bigoted one." The right hon. Gentleman's flirtation with Safeguarding shows that he is not a bigoted Free Trader.
I think I have dealt with all the points which were made in the course of the right hon. Gentleman's speech. I thank him for having enlivened what otherwise might have been a rather dull Debate. We always welcome the right hon. Gentleman's interventions in our Debates; we get amusement, if we do not always get edification. But, however strenuous may be the conflict between the right hon. Gentleman and myself, I want to assure him that I am very fond of him, and I really do not know how I should get on without him. Therefore, I conclude by wishing the right hon. Gentleman a very merry Christmas and a happy New Year.

WOMEN'S ROYAL AIR FORCE (MISS PENNANT).

Mr. W. J. BROWN: I am sorry to distract the attention of the House from the battle of financial giants, but I deem it to be my duty to raise a matter of a somewhat different kind; I refer to the Douglas Pennant case, which I gave notice to the Prime Minister some few weeks ago I would raise at a suitable opportunity. Older Members of the House will be familiar with the broad facts of the Douglas Pennant case. Newer Members will not be so familiar with them, and I therefore propose to begin by reciting, as briefly as possible, the facts of the case; I propose then to look at the steps which have been taken to deal with the case, to suggest to the House that the steps so far taken are in-
adequate, and to ask the Government to appoint a small committee of investigation into that case.
In April, 1918, Miss Douglas Pennant, who for 6½ years previously had been a member of the Insurance Commission for Wales, was asked by Lord Rothermere, then the Secretary of State for Air, to take on the post of Commandant of the Women's Royal Air Force. She undertook to come to the Air Ministry and to look round for a month before finally taking a decision on that offer. It became evident to her during that month's investigation that she was asked to take on an extraordinarily difficult proposition. In the first place, the Air Ministry had only recently been created as an independent unit, and its creation as an independent unit had given rise to some resentment. In the second place, there was resentment within the Air Ministry at the taking away of the Women's Royal Air Force from the charge of the Equipment Section of the Air Ministry and its constitution as a separate unit. In the third place, the force itself was in a very unsatisfactory state. Unlike the "Wrens" and the "Waacs," which had grown naturally from small beginnings and whose organisation had expanded naturally, the Women's Royal Air Force was created by the transfer of large numbers of women from the "Waacs," inadequately officered and inadequately accommodated; and, indeed, at the time when Miss Douglas Pennant took over, for some 16,000 members of the force there were only 75 officers available, and in the appointment of at least some of those officers there had been room for grave complaint that persons had been selected on grounds other than their natural capacity for the job which they were required to perform. In spite of those facts, Miss Douglas Pennant, in the belief that she could render good public service, agreed, on pressure from Lord Rothermere, to take on the post, and she became the Commandant of the Women's Royal Air Force in June, 1918.
The anticipation of trouble which she had formed in the month's preliminary survey was not disappointed. Within a fortnight of her taking office as Commandant, she was warned by disappointed candidates for appointment to various posts that, unless she recom-
mended that they should be given posts, she would be disgraced and dismissed, because of the powerful influences which would be brought into operation against her. Within a fortnight of taking office, she received a similar warning from a General in the Air Force, to the effect that members of her immediate entourage were engaged in a conspiracy to prevent the reform of the conditions which still existed in the Women's Royal Air Force, and to force her own resignation. Within a fortnight of her taking office there was a collective resignation on the part of three of those who were working immediately under her, designed to force her own resignation, or, alternatively, to compel her to accept the nomination of unsatisfactory candidates for posts.
When that collective resignation took place, her then General, General Paine, investigated very fully the circumstances of those resignations, decided that in the interests of the public service they should be accepted, backed Miss Pennant, and ordered the officers who were in mutiny to remain in their posts until such time as substitutes were found for them. In spite of that, the officers who had mutinied left their posts in disobedience to orders and shook the dust of the Air Ministry off their feet. After that preliminary trouble Miss Douglas Pennant had no further difficulty with her immediate entourage. She had tremendous difficulty, however, with the state in which the Women's Royal Air Force was at that time. I have explained that the great need at that time in the force was officers. The conditions existing in the camps, the expansion of the Air Force, the development of the corps, all depended upon an adequate supply of trained officers, and the first essential for getting that supply was the provision of premises and equipment for the training of officers in officers' training centres.
When Miss Pennant had been appointed she had superseded another officer, Colonel Bersey, who was in charge of the equipment department—from the control of which department the Women's Royal Air Force was removed. But Colonel Bersey and the equipment department continued to be responsible for the provision of accommodation and equipment which the force had to use. In other words, Miss Pennant could only do her job provided that the utmost co-
operation was forthcoming from an officer of another branch whom she had superseded. In fact, from the beginning and during the whole of her 10 weeks' stay in the Air Ministry, nothing but obstruction and difficulty was experienced by Miss Pennant in regard to the supply of premises and equipment which alone could make possible the successful performance of her duties.
Now comes a remarkable thing. On 26th August, some 10 weeks after her appointment, Miss Pennant's immediate chief, General Paine, was promoted. General Paine had stood by her in all the difficulties which she had experienced up to that time. Two days later General Brancker was appointed to succeed General Paine, and two days after his appointment, without making any kind of charge against her and without giving her any opportunity for a reply to any charge, General Brancker dismissed Miss Pennant without even 24 hours' notice.
3.0 p.m.
King's Regulations provide that an officer may not be dismissed save after the fullest possible investigation and the fullest opportunity on his part to answer any charges made against him. Civil Service regulations provide that before disciplinary action was taken against any civil servant, the charge shall be stated in writing and an opportunity afforded of making a reply in writing. In this case there was no charge, no opportunity of replying to a charge, no notice, but a summary dismissal which would only have been justified on the assumption that she had been detected in theft or was some kind of moral leper not fit to be retained in the department. Indeed, the circumstances under which her connection with the Air Ministry ended, gave rise on a widespread scale to the assumption that she must be a moral leper or that incident would not have occurred. On her dismissal Miss Pennant applied to Lord Weir, who had succeeded Lord Rothermere at the Air Ministry, for an inquiry. The inquiry was refused, and she turned to the then Prime Minister, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) He appointed one of his secretaries to make an investigation, and the investigation was made by that secretary (Mr. Cecil Harmsworth), and it is known by those who have seen his report that it
was entirely in Miss Pennant's favour, and that Mr. Cecil Harmsworth recommended the Prime Minister to hold a formal inquiry into the circumstances in which Miss Pennant had been dismissed. Indeed, the then Prime Minister promised that such an inquiry should be held, but under pressure from Lord Weir, the promise was not fulfilled. The Harms-worth report was suppressed, and has never seen the light of day from then until now. Miss Pennant then turned to the House of Commons, and efforts were made in this House to get an inquiry. These were resisted by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill), who was then responsible for the Air Ministry in this House.
Disappointed here, Miss Pennant turned to another place, and it was there decided by a majority of three to one to appoint a Select Committee. Then an astonishing thing happened. The very Government which had refused to hold an inquiry on its own initiative, faced with the decision in another place said, "We will appoint the personnel of that Select Committee. We will confine our choice to Members of the other place, who voted against an inquiry, or did not vote, and exclude any Member who voted for the inquiry." This amazing decision was followed by the still more amazing decision to appoint on the committee the father-in-law of the Secretary to the Air Ministry, Sir John Baird, who was intimately acquainted with the details of the case. But, indeed, there is no end to the farce and the tragedy which surround this case. The committee having thus been constituted, the chairman ruled that the terms of reference should be so interpreted as to place on Miss Pennant the onus of proving that she had been wrongfully dismissed. The onus really rested on the Air Ministry to show why they had dismissed a responsible officer in almost unexampled circumstances, but the terms of reference were so interpreted by Lord Wrenbury, the chairman of the committee as to put Miss Pennant in the position of proving a case for wrongful dismissal. Worse still, it put her in that position, although she had no knowledge of the charges made against her and had no access to the files of the Air Ministry upon which so much might depend.
The third amazing thing that happened was that the committee itself made no effort to extract the nature of the charges made against Miss Pennant, and it was not until after the inquiry had closed that she became familiar with what those charges were. It is known that on the day when General Brancker took over in place of General Paine he had been seen by Lady Rhondda. It is known also that Lady Rhondda had seen the Air Minister, and the head of the Ministry of National Service, Sir Auckland Geddes, prior to seeing General Brancker, and dismissing Miss Pennant. The presumption was that something had come from Lady Rhondda via Sir Auckland Geddes to Lord Weir, the Air Minister, which had caused Lord Weir to instruct General Brancker to dismiss Miss Pennant in the way in which she was dismissed. Indeed, that presumption was confirmed in 1919, a year later, when Lady Rhondda wrote to the "Times" and declared publicly that she had advised Lord Weir to dismiss Miss Pennant from her post. Will it be believed that, in spite of those circumstances, the Select Committee made no effort to extract from Lady Rhondda or from the Air Ministry itself the nature of the charges which had passed by that channel and, having reached the Air Minister, had resulted in the dismissal of this lady.
Worse still, it was known that Sir Auckland Geddes had written to Lord Weir on the subject. The Select Committee inquired where that letter was. The Air Ministry could not produce it, and the Ministry of National Service, from which it had come, could not find the carbon copy. A responsible public servant—and I am personally very much concerned with the public service of this country—had been ruined and dismissed on the strength of a written communication and on the strength of oral communications in line with the written communication, and yet, when the Select Committee of the House of Lords inquires into the matter, neither the letter nor the carbon copy of the letter can be found. Lawyers tell me that when an action for wrongful dismissal is taken in the Courts, it is obligatory on the employer who resists that action to make public the grounds upon which he has dismissed the employé, in order that
the latter may have the fullest opportunity of trying to prove his case. In the case of the Select Committee of the House of Lords, that was never done, and indeed the very documents which were understood to formulate the charges could not be found when asked for by the Select Committee.
But I am prepared to assume for the purpose of this discussion that the Select Committee was right in placing the onus upon Miss Pennant rather than upon the Air Ministry. The terms of reference to the Select Committee were to inquire into and report upon the circumstances connected with Miss Douglas Pennant's dismissal. Those circumstances were alleged by Miss Pennant to be that she had come into the Air Ministry at the request of the Minister, that she had cleared up an extraordinarily difficult situation, that she had experienced obstruction, in the effort to clear up that situation, that she had run up against vested interests in her effort to clear up the situation, and that those vested interests had conspired with people outside the Department to bring about her dismissal. If the Select Committee were right in their avenue of approach, the very least that they might have done was to probe the truth of those accusations to the bottom. I want to give two or three examples to the House to show how far they discharged the duty that was imposed upon them. One of Miss Douglas Pennant's complaints had been that the officer whom she had superseded, Colonel Bersey, who was responsible for the supply and equipment to the training centres in which she wanted to train officers, had obstructed the supply of furniture and equipment to these centres. Early in June she had asked for indents to be put through for furniture and equipment for a training centre that she had established in Berridge House. These indents were finally put through on 17th July, some six weeks after she had asked that they should be put through. That was only done after complaints by responsible officers in the Air Ministry other than Miss Douglas Pennant. These facts were brought out in evidence, but the only counter-evidence that the Air Ministry produced took the form of minutes, which showed that indents had been put forward in respect of depot hostels—depot hostels being an entirely different thing
from officers' training centres. Yet this amazing Committee included in their Report a paragraph to the effect that the indents for the furniture were issued on 17th July,
and in our opinion, these minutes completely destroy Miss Douglas Pennant's story of obstruction by Colonel Bersey in respect of Berridge House. They were all put to her in cross-examination. She had no answer to make to them, and we thought that her charges of obstruction were not substantiated.
Will any lawyer in the House believe me when I say that the minutes which the Select Committee refer to are minutes which relate to an entirely different thing, namely, depot hostels and not officers' training centres? Miss Douglas Pennant had made no complaint in regard to depot hostels. Besides that, as every civil servant knows, there is all the difference in the world between a minute from one officer to another and an indent for goods, upon which alone the supplying department is able to act.
I could keep the House for a very long time analysing some of the amazing things which this Committee did, but I confine myself to one other illustration. The suggestion was that Miss Douglas Pennant really had no cause for complaint at being dismissed from her post as commandant because she had never held the post at all. It so happens that prior to her appointment, there had been no post as commandant. At the time of her appointment, new rules were in draft which provided for a post of commandant, but there had been protracted delay in getting these new regulations printed and issued, and at the time of Miss Douglas Pennant's dismissal, they had still not actually been issued, and were not in fact issued until the following November. The Select Committee actually took advantage of that suggestion to argue that Miss Douglas Pennant held no post to which King's Regulations applied, and, therefore, had no complaint as to the way in which she had been dismissed. She had been offered the post of commandant, she had accepted it, she had worn the uniform, she had issued instructions as commandant, she was known from one end of the country to another as commandant, she was referred to as commandant in all the official minutes and papers, and yet, because of the delay in issuing regulations, this amazing Select Committee discovered that really
she held no post to which King's Regulations applied, and therefore had no complaint about the way in which she was dismissed. From my point of view, it does not matter whether her post was a military post to which King's Regulations applied or whether it was a Civil Service post to which Civil Service Regulations applied. One of those two it must have been, and, whichever it was, the same broad principle that a public servant shall not be discharged without the charges being formulated against him and a formal opportunity for reply being given applies.
But the thing that put the climax on the work of that Committee was one other circumstance. Whenever large bodies of men and women are taken away from natural conditions of life, and are concentrated together in camps during a time of war, cases of irregular sex relations are bound to arise. They are the inevitable result of the abnormal conditions prevailing in war time. Lord Stanhope, in giving evidence before the Select Committee of the House of Lords, had drawn attention to the conditions that existed in that respect in certain of the camps and had specified the case particularly of Hurst Park. He was pressed by the chairman of the Committee to say who was his informant in regard to the conditions at Hurst Park, and he replied that he thought it had either been Miss Douglas Pennant or, alternatively, a gentleman by the name of Colonel de Frece. Pressed still further, he had replied that it was not Miss Douglas Pennant, but Colonel de Frece. On his return home he had written to the chairman of the Committee and told the chairman that since giving evidence he had seen the woman in charge at Hurst Park and three other witnesses, who were prepared to testify to the truth of what he had said in regard to the conditions prevailing in that particular camp. One would have assumed that that Select Committee, charged to inquire into the circumstances surrounding Miss Douglas Pennant's dismissal, would have called those witnesses and probed the truth of those things to the bottom.
The chairman refused to call those witnesses. He did a still more amazing thing. He warned Miss Douglas Pennant's counsel that if he called them
then, from the moment that they were called, Miss Douglas Pennant herself would be personally financially responsible for the whole of the subsequent costs of that Committee of Inquiry. That was an impossible burden for Miss Douglas Pennant to assume, and the inquiry came to an end, and came to an end because she could not afford the money to carry the thing further; and yet in their Report, the Committee first of all fasten Lord Stanhope's charges upon Miss Pennant, hold her responsible for them and then use the fact that she did not call certain people as witnesses as a ground for supposing that the charges were baseless and that therefore Miss Pennant's complaint, was unfounded in that respect. I have seen a good deal of this kind of work, and I have seen many judicial decisions, but I have never read anything which so little resembles justice as the Report of that Committee. It is special pleading from beginning to end, and it cannot be regarded as settling the Douglas Pennant case, or supporting the refusal to reconsider the case in regard to her dismissal to which Miss Pennant is justly entitled.
In 1924, when the Labour Government came into office, an attempt was made to get the matter dealt with, and the present Prime Minister instructed one of his secretaries to establish contact with Miss Pennant to consult with her as to how the case might be disposed of, and the intention was to submit to her the draft of any letter which was drawn up dealing with the case. Discussions took place and they culminated in a letter being sent to Miss Pennant, but which still left the matter in the same unsatisfactory position. Last year a tremendous petition containing thousands of signatures was presented to the House of Commons, but from 1918 to 1929 Miss Douglas Pennant has remained in the same position in which she was left when she was dismissed. She has since that time been debarred from taking up any kind of public work and from all kinds of social circles in which she would move under ordinary circumstances. She has been denied the right of joining the Old Comrades Association until such time as the inquiry demanded by her and her friends and by many Members of this House into the circumstances of her dismissal is granted.
I want to say, in conclusion, that I spent a great many years in the Civil Service of this country in much more obscure capacities than Miss Pennant. I have also spent many years in trade union activities in the Civil Service, and I have had abundant opportunities of observing how responsible officers have frequently been condemned behind their backs without having the opportunity of meeting their accusers, and answering the charges made against them. It is known that what happened in the Douglas Pennant case was that the three women who mutinied in the first fortnight of her tenure of office had established contact with Lady Rhondda, that Lady Rhondda had operated through Sir Auckland Geddes, that Sir Auckland Geddes had gone to Lord Weir, and that Lord Weir had instructed General Brancker to dismiss her. At no stage was this woman given the opportunity of knowing what she was charged with or of meeting the charge when it had been made.
Civil Service trade unionism has fought for years, and has succeeded in establishing the principle in the Army, the Navy and the Air Force that no disciplinary action shall be taken against an officer without a categorical charge being made and without an opportunity being afforded for replying to that charge. So long as the Douglas Pennant case stands where it now is, it is an everlasting warning to any straight and honest person, called upon to clear up a difficult mess, to refrain from clearing it up, in case the necessary backing from his political chiefs is not forthcoming when trouble results from trying to clear it. It is an everlasting warning to Civil Servants and officers in other forces to make friends with the Mammon of Unrighteousness, to avoid doing the straight thing, to turn a blind eye to corruption and wrong influences, and to play for safety rather than to do one's duty by the State of which one is the employé. So long as that case stands where it is, no public servant in this country can feel assured that, if he or she does his or her job as he or she ought to, they are going to be protected against the consequences of playing the game.
There was a boy clerk—and I also at one time was a boy clerk in the Civil Service—who had served with Miss Douglas Pennant at the Welsh Insurance Commission, and he said to her, after
these things had happened, what I say to the House now. He said, "Miss Pennant, when we were at the Welsh Insurance Commission you did your best to teach us that we had got to play the game by the State. In those days I would never have believed that you could have experienced the treatment that you have experienced as the result of trying to do your job in the Air Ministry. Hereafter, I do not believe in playing the game in the State service." That cannot but be the impression when a woman with a long record of public service, called in to clear up a corrupt mess, does her best to clear it up, comes into conflict with the vested interests that existed there, fights those interests in a clean and straight way, and then, at the end of it, is allowed to be manoeuvred out of her job in circumstances which are calculated to cast a stigma upon her and to prevent her from engaging in public work ever again until that stigma is cleared away.
It is suggested that nothing should be done in this case because it is 10 years old. My reply is that the fact that this injustice has gone for 10 years without-being put right makes it imperative that not another day should be lost before we try to put it right. It is suggested that we cannot look at this case, without resurrecting all the scandals that existed in war time. If that were true, my reply would be that I would sooner rake over a dozen scandals affecting dishonest people than see one honest person suffer as the result of having gone straight. But it is not the case that what is contemplated is an in descriminate roving commission into the scandals that existed at that time. What is contemplated is the appointment of two or three men of affairs to investigate that single point—how was it that an honourable and responsible officer, whose resignation, when she tendered it 10 days earlier as a protect against the obstruction with which she was meeting, was declined, to whom tributes had been paid a fortnight earlier by the Under-Secretary of State for Air in this House, was suddenly dismissed without a word of charge against her and without a single opportunity of replying to the charge if one had been made?
Another suggestion, which may be repeated here to-day, is that all kinds of
people were superseded during the War period inevitably under war conditions. I do not deny that that is true. A lot of poor people suffered from that kind of thing as well as relatively well-connected and well-to-do people like Miss Pennant. But this is not an ordinary case of an officer being transferred from one post to another because of a rearrangement of duty, not a case of an officer being found all right from an efficiency point of view but difficult from a personal point of view, and therefore whose resignation or transfer was facilitated. It is a case of a woman against whom no charge has been made, who is dismissed under circumstances which would only be conceivable if she were a common thief or a moral leper. The public service, for which the House is finally responsible, the officers of the Army and Navy, for whom this House is also finally responsible, can feel no sense of assurance so long as the Douglas Pennant case remains undealt with, as it remains undealt with at present.
I do not believe in the long run you can stop the truth coming to the surface. If the Government turns me down to-day, the case will come up again and again and again until at last justice is done, and every Government that turns it down incurs a moral responsibility that I should like to see our Government free of. There are some things their position in this House prevents them doing. It may be that they cannot embark upon the kind of policy that many of us would like to see them follow, but they can deal with cases like Miss Pennant's and others I could mention who have been victimised, and disgraced because of their loyalty and their fidelity to their duty and say, whether they are five or 10 years old, "We are concerned as a Government to establish the principle that men and women shall not suffer or be victimised for doing their job and, therefore, we will appoint the Committee for which you are asking." I earnestly ask the Government to give us that inquiry, not a roving commission but a small committee of two or three men of affairs who can deal with the single issue affecting Miss Pennant with a view to a wrong act of 1918 being wiped out, the stigma withdrawn from her, and a public servant who has been disgracefully treated restored to her rightful position in the public estimate.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir William Jowitt): I am sure everybody who has listened to this Debate will agree at any rate that Miss Pennant is to be congratulated upon her advocate here to-day in the sincere, and I may add enthusiastic, way in which he has put her case. An experience extending over a great many years of courts of justice has taught me that there is nothing more likely, I am afraid, to do harm than a sense of grievance. I do not suppose anything I say to-day can remove the grievance which Miss Pennant undoubtedly felt and I have no doubt still feels, but I would add this word of caution, which we all know to be true, that, once you get a person brooding over a grievance, the grievance tends to become magnified out of all proportion, until at long last the person cannot judge what the real facts of the case were. I would earnestly hope the words I say to-day may, in the interest of Miss Pennant, end this matter, because it is perfectly certain, in her own interests, that it is not desirable that the wound should be kept open a day longer than is necessary.
The circumstances attending Miss Pennant's discharge from the post she occupied have been clearly stated, shortly after the occasion, and by a number of Prime Ministers and successive Secretaries of State for Air. We have to throw our minds back to August, 1918. The War was then on and was still in a not uncritical phase. The number of men available for enlistment in the Royal Air Force was strictly limited. It was therefore necessary to supplement the men as far as possible by women. Unfortunately, the organisation of the "Wrafs," as they were called—the Women's Royal Air Force—was not satisfactory; it was eminently unsatisfactory, and in August, 1918, the matter came to a head and steps had to be taken.
Lord Weir was Secretary of State for Air, and there is not the shadow of a doubt that he changed his mind. On 7th August an answer was given in this House to the effect that Miss Douglas Pennant was giving every satisfaction, but between that date and 27th August Sir Auckland Geddes had caused to be written a letter to Lord Weir which called attention in most striking terms to the
thoroughly bad organisation of the Women's Royal Air Force. The hon. Member may say that this letter was missing. It is quite true that the letter was not found, but a draft was found on the file, and Lord Weir agreed that he had received a letter in the terms of the draft. That draft is actually set out in the Committee's Report. It called attention to the fact that the organisation was very bad and to the immediate steps to be taken to improve them. Lord Weir had to consider what were the best steps to take and who was the best person to take them. He received the letter about 23rd August; 24th August, 1918, was a Saturday, and he went to the country for a week-end. On 25th August he made up his mind that he would replace Miss Pennant as head of the Women's Royal Air Force by somebody else. When he came to that decision he had seen nobody and received no document except the letter from Sir Auckland Geddes which is set out in the Report. He subsequently did see Lady Rhondda.

Mr. W. J. BROWN: I am sorry to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman, but, if I understand him aright, it comes to this, that Lord Weir, the political head of the Air Ministry, came to this conclusion on a statement from somebody outside the Ministry without any kind of reference to the individual concerned.

The ATTORNEY - GENERAL: Of course, that is so, and necessarily must be so. When you are at war, the one thing that matters is the defeat of your enemy by having the best organisation that you can, and I suggest it as elementary common sense to every part of the House that it would be disastrous if any person, though you may call him a political leader, who is the head of a fighting service, were to hesitate about putting the best person in charge of a job because personal considerations might enter into it. Lord Weir had to do his duty regardless of personal considerations and select the best occupant for a very responsible post. He came to the conclusion—I am not concerned to argue whether rightly or wrongly, more than to say that it was honest—that Miss Douglas Pennant was not the person best fitted for that particular job at that particular time, and, acting upon that conclusion, he did that which any honest man would have done
and would have had to do; he took steps to replace her. I entirely agree that the manner of her discharge was regrettable. I think it is a matter for great regret, and I would remind the House that for that Lord Weir apologised. He could do no less, and we could ask him to do no more. If he came to the honest conclusion that it was necessary to replace Miss Pennant by someone else, he was in duty bound to this country to see that that was carried out.
It was made perfectly plain to Miss Pennant—and I desire to make it perfectly plain again, because really if she feels, as she says she feels, social ostracism, possibly these words of mine may have some effect—that there is not, and there never has been, the slightest ground for suggesting that Miss Pennant was guilty of any kind of moral turpitude or any moral fault or moral obliquity, or that she, at any time, was doing anything other than the very best she possibly could in the interests of the Women's Royal Air Force. Let that be plainly understood. Let it equally be plainly understood that there is no charge made against Miss Pennant's general efficiency. Her long record of honourable public service shows that she was a most efficient person in organisation and in other respects. The sole reason why Lord Weir decided to make an alteration in the head of the Women's Royal Air Force was because he thought that for this particular job at this particular time Miss Pennant was not the best person. That really is the end of the case. I think that it is a very great pity, in Miss Pennant's interests, that the matter was not allowed to rest there when the apology was obtained from Lord Weir with regard to the gross manner of her dismissal. But what followed? The question, of course, was not simply the question, "Was this an honest exercise by Lord Weir of his discretion?" It was at once said that there had been here a very serious intrigue—[Interruption]. My hon. Friend says, "So there was." My hon. Friend has played the part of advocate well, and he should not also play the part of judge.

Mr. BROWN: rose—

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I do not intend to give way to the hon. Member about that, because I know full well that
no person at the same time can be both. Judge and advocate. An advocate trying to be a Judge would be a bad Judge. Charges were made, and, having read through most of the papers in this matter, let me say, charges of perhaps the most grave and serious nature with which I have ever had to deal. It was said that there had been an intrigue set on foot. The hon. Member repeated it in his speech to-day. An intrigue set on foot. Why? An intrigue set on foot by various officers in the Air Force and various other persons who were interested in seeing that certain immorality which was alleged to be taking place did not come to an end. Hon. Members in every part of the House will agree that it is difficult to conceive any more serious charge being made against an officer on the active list than that he was anxious that these things which were said to be going on should go on. The Committee therefore investigated perfectly specific charges, which were made, not by Miss Douglas Pennant alone, with regard to certain persons. It was alleged that these persons had, for the reasons that I have indicated, entered into some kind of intrigue against her.
With regard to what the hon. Member has said about the Select Committee which was set up, I content myself by saying that I profoundly disagree with him. I have read not only the findings of the Committee but I have read the whole of the evidence. The Committee was presided over by Lord Wrenbury who, as Lord Justice Buckley, was well known to every lawyer. They investigated the specific charges that had been made. Reading the Report one must be surprised at the lengths to which those who made the charges went in investigating isolated charges in regard to misconduct which was not alleged to have taken place until months after Miss Douglas Pennant's dismissal, because, as her counsel said, proof that misconduct took place afterwards would make it more likely that it also took place before. All these charges were investigated by the Select Committee, and the Committee came unanimously to the conclusion that there was no substance whatever in the charges, that the charges ought never to have been made, and they expressed their deep regret that the charges had been made.

Mr. STEPHEN: Were not the facts, as stated by my hon. Friend the Member for West Wolverhampton (Mr. W. J. Brown) in regard to Lord Stanhope's evidence, admitted.

The ATTORNEY - GENERAL: The facts in regard to Lord Stanhope's evidence are set out in the Report. It is too lengthy a matter to be dealt with by question and answer. They state that Lord Stanhope's statement in regard to certain evidence was based on information supplied to him by Miss Douglas Pennant. I have considered the matter most anxiously to see how far I could advise those responsible that we might deal with this case even now, after 11 years, by appointing some other Committee to investigate it, but I have come to the conclusion that it would be, I say so quite candidly, grossly unjust to the other people who were closely concerned and had these charges made against them, if we were to re-open this matter. It is not that there is any charge made against Miss Douglas Pennant.

Mr. BROWN: indicated dissent.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: The hon. Member has done me the courtesy of listening to me so far. He will realise that I have tried to make it plain that there is no charge against Miss Douglas Pennant, and that in the mind of any reasonable person there ought not to be any charge either as to her moral character, her conduct or her efficiency.

Mr. BROWN: This is a little difficult to endure. I put this point to the Attorney-General, that when you dismiss a woman in circumstances which appear to make her a perfectly moral leper, you do not subsequently vindicate that woman by getting up and paying verbal tributes to her. You can only vindicate her by inquiring into the root of the matter, and putting it straight.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: What is a perfectly moral leper? Suppose that a responsible Government desired to supersede some general in the field, because they thought he was not fit to command, and they demurred from so doing because it was said: "If you supersede General A, you are treating him like a moral leper, and he will be socially ostracised for the rest of her life."

Mr. BROWN: The cases are not analogous.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: Whether the reason is good or bad, once Lord Weir had decided that she was not the best woman for these duties, I should have advised him that he had no option but to get rid of her. We were engaged in a war with the Germans, and we had to beat the Germans, and beating the Germans could be best accomplished by having the best organisation in the men's and in the women's forces. What I want to do is to heal the wound, as far as I can. I have said what has been said by successive Prime Ministers—the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George), the late Mr. Bonar Law, the present Leader of the Opposition and the present Prime Minister. I have made and they have made it perfectly plain that there is no charge whatever against Miss Douglas Pennant. If we were to reopen this matter and have a further inquiry to go into the question of intrigue again, the hon. Member says it would not much matter as it would only mean raking over scandals affecting dishonest persons. But that begs the whole question.
Are these persons dishonest? The scandal has been raked over. One woman in particular had to submit herself to the indignity of a physical examination. If these scandals are to be raked over again you put all these people who have vindicated themselves completely from these charges in peril once more, and it is an elementary principle of justice that when a person has been tried and acquitted you never try that person again on the same charge. The reason I have come to the conclusion that it is quite impossible to accede to the request is this. The hon. Member has considered this from one point of view, the point of view of Miss Douglas Pennant, but it seems to me that you cannot isolate this case and put it into a completely watertight compartment. There are innumerable points at which it inevitably touches other people. The question whether this was a dishonest exercise of discretion depends on whether or not there was an intrigue. You cannot investigate whether there was an intrigue or not without going over once more the self-same ground covered by the
Committee when they considered whether certain specifically named persons had or had not been guilty of an intrigue, and they came to the conclusion that they had not been guilty of any intrigue at all. They summed up their Report in this way:
We find that in acting as he did Lord Weir was free from improper influence altogether. As Minister of Air Service it was wholly and solely for him, if he acted honestly, to supersede Miss Douglas Pennant if in his judgment it was in the interests of the public service so to do. In our judgment he acted honestly and superseded her because in the interests of the public service he thought it right to do so.
That sums up the whole matter. As far as I am concerned, having read a vast number of leaflets and pamphlets and appeals, and having read the Harms-worth Report, 'which the hon. Member refers to as having been suppressed, I am convinced that that is the sum of the whole matter. Let me say a word with regard to the Harms-worth Report. It was a confidential document, sent by one of his private secretaries to the then Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs. I have the document in my room and, personally, I should not have the smallest objection to showing it to the hon. Member. If I did so I think he would realise that he has not quite accurately stated what is in it. But it seems to me important that the confidential nature of this document should be preserved, otherwise if such documents are going to be dragged out you may arrive at a stage when a private secretary would hesitate as to what be should put in a report to the Prime Minister on account of what may be published afterwards. If they are dragged out in one case it will create a precedent, and it may be said, you did it in one case, why not in another?
The Courts of law and the traditions of this House make it undesirable that a document like this should be disclosed. The hon. Member referred to it as being suppressed, but I can assure him that there is no suppression whatever if he means anything in the sinister sense, and, if he presses me, I will gladly take the opportunity of asking the Prime Minister and the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs to break a precedent and show it to the hon. Member— not that I really hope that by so doing, I shall remove the grievance; but I
would seriously urge the hon. Member for West Wolverhampton (Mr. W. J. Brown) to use all the influence that he can with Miss Douglas Pennant not to let this matter become an obsession with her. I am quite certain that it is not in her interests. There is no reason whatever why any honest person in this world should have any hesitation in dealing with Miss Douglas Pennant, and anybody may be proud to know such a woman as Miss Douglas Pennant, who has rendered many years most valuable service to the State.
There does come a time in the lives of most of us when from time to time we wonder whether we are peculiarly fitted for the particular job which we are called upon to do. We frequently feel, with regard to other people, a doubt whether they are so fitted—more so perhaps than with regard to ourselves. Without saying anything in the smallest degree derogatory to Miss Douglas Pennant, I would ask her to consider this: It may be—it is conceivable—that she was not the person best fitted to deal with the state of difficulty existing at that particular time. I do not pretend to know why; I do not pretend to express any opinion of my own as to whether that is right or wrong. I do not even go so far as to say that Lord Weir acted wisely. As this Report says he certainly vacillated; he certainly changed his mind; but what does matter is this: I do desire to say that there is not the slightest ground for suggesting that Lord Weir acted dishonestly. After all, in time of war, even more possibly than in time of peace, appointments to great offices such as that which Miss Douglas Pennant held must be subject to the exercise of discretion by a responsible authority. If the fact is, as the Committee says, that Lord Weir acted honestly, there is really no more to be said. I venture to express the opinion, in which the Prime Minister concurs, that the idea of going once more, after 11 years, into this whole matter, which must inevitably involve dealing with grave questions in which a number of people who have vindicated their honour are concerned, should not now be entertained; and I would urge that Miss Douglas Pennant should rest content with the explanations which I have given, and with my telling her, quite
frankly, that there is not, and never has been, the slightest charge against her honour.

Major ELLIOT: In a case such as this, when the Motion for the Adjournment permits of the review of outstanding questions by the House of Commons, inevitably a number of most divergent subjects have to be reviewed; and already to-day the House has reviewed the question of naval strategy in the Far East, has reviewed the position of our national finances, has heard a Chancellor of the Exchequer wish his predecessor a Merry Christmas while assuring him of his personal love and apparently undying political hostility, and has listened again to a review of a case which has more than once come before this House. I ask the House to turn its attention for a moment or two to a further subject, which is also within its competence at this moment.

NEW GOVERNMENT BUILDINGS, EDINBURGH.

4.0 p.m.

The capital of the Northern Kingdom, the capital of Scotland, has at present an opportunity before it for one of the great architectural decisions which from time to time has to be taken in relation to the public buildings and monuments of our country. The site at the head of Princes Street, known as the Calton Gaol site, is now under review, the purpose being the pulling down of the gaol buildings which are at present standing thereon and erecting new public buildings for the Sheriffs' Court House and for other purposes. These matters come under the review of the First Commissioner of Works but they are also closely connected with the Department of the Secretary of State for Scotland. We, in Scotland, as a nation are jealous of our national dignities and prerogatives, and we are inclined, perhaps, to be a little touchy and suspicious when we hear of decisions being taken in London which we think impinge upon those prerogatives. I must thank the First Commissioner of Works for his courtesy in attending here this afternoon, and I hope I have not too long delayed his departure on holiday. If I have, some of the blame must be attributed to the eloquence of hon. Members on his own side of the House on the Douglas Pennant case. As I say this matter is the responsibility of the First Commissioner but the Scottish
Office cannot divest itself of responsibility. I understand that the decision is taken in the first place at the instance of the First Commissioner of Works.

The plans and designs for the buildings to be erected upon this great rocky promontory at the end of Princes Street—one of the great sites of Europe—are, in the first place, to be by one architect only and that is the architect of the Office of Works Sir Robert Allison. Those interested in the amenities of Edinburgh and the historical tradition which has to be expressed in any building erected on this historic site, consider that the matter should be open to public competition and that, if possible, the award should be given to a Scottish architect. That is not only an instance of a desire for which our people are perhaps notorious but is for the reason that Edinburgh is singularly fortunate in the fact that the rebuilding which has been done from time to time has not in spirit or design derogated from the original city. When the Nor' Loch was drained and Princes Street built, the new town which sprang up, although on entirely new lines, was no less gracious and dignified than the Royal Mile.

Now comes the time when a new decision has to be taken and the present Lord Provost of Edinburgh is among the foremost of those who are greatly concerned about this decision. He has ideas for the new buildings in the City of Edinburgh according to which Edinburgh shall have a Government Mile and a University Mile as well as a Royal Mile and it is desired that all these new buildings shall be in character. It would be a great feat if an architect from any part of the country other than Scotland could express the soul of the Scottish nation in the buildings which are to grow up on the skyline at the end of Princes Street. That might be possible I admit, but what I desire to emphasise is that we wish for buildings which will express, not merely accommodation for so many typists, or rooms for so many Ministers and Under-Secretaries, lavatories, dining rooms and the rest of it, but buildings which shall express in an outline of stone against the sky of Scotland, the soul of Scotland in 1930.

These buildings will require not merely architectural skill, but a man who is soaked in the tradition of a public, who is soaked in the architec-
tural features of a city. That may be found in the Chief Architect of the Office of Works, but my point is that it is not alone to be found in the Chief Architect of the Office of Works—I put the claim no higher than that—and that the Fine Arts Commission and the Town Council of Edinburgh should have before them alternative plans upon which to make their decision. The right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works visited Edinburgh and had a meeting arranged, I understand, by the hon. Member for West Edinburgh (Mr. Mathers), and a very useful conference was held there, but from the reports which I have seen of that meeting it appears that the First Commissioner still stuck to the fact that these designs were being supplied by his Office and that they would go to the Fine Arts Commission for Scotland for consideration and thereafter be submitted to the Corporation of Edinburgh. In the event of the disagreement of the Corporation the plans would have to be submitted to an arbitrator, he said, but he hoped there would be no question of going to arbitration. Still there is one set of plans. The right hon. Gentleman went on to say further:
Speaking for himself, he would not dream of proceeding in the face of really serious opposition if the objections raised to the scheme appeared to him to be of sufficient weight as to justify him reconsidering the position.
It seems to me clear that it will be more than desirable that alternative plans, however good the plans presented by his architect are, should be submitted to the Corporation of Edinburgh for their decision, and I would put it to him if he is not inviting a rebuff to his own architect and his own Office by merely submitting a single plan, which it seems to me is almost bound to be disagreed with by the Fine Arts Commission and the Corporation of Edinburgh, were it only for the purpose of bringing the question further and ensuring that further plans should be submitted to them for their consideration.

It may be said that decisions have been taken by previous Governments. As far as I know, in the Scottish Office we never proceeded to the position that the Office of Works should be the office which should in fact carry through this undertaking. I admit that claims were staked
out by that proud body the Office of Works, but inter-departmental quarrels have not been unknown before, and I think the late Secretary of State for Scotland, who is well known as a persistent and by some rulings an obstinate man, would have done his utmost to see that the national claims of Scotland were considered, as well as the claims of efficiency which might be advanced by the Office of Works, and in that attitude he would have had no more vigorous supporters than the Clyde brigade, the Opposition as they were then, the Government Members as they are now, from the banks of the Clyde.

I ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider that we are bringing this forward not in any way as a party question. It is a question affecting Scotland, and it will no doubt be weighed up on those grounds, but Scottish Members in all parts of the House feel convinced that here is a very great opportunity, that if it is met by the submission of one set of plans alone, it will be scarcely less than a miracle on the part of the architect who prepares and brings forward those plans; and we suggest that the pivotal quality that this site and elevation will have in the architecture of Edinburgh make it worth while that, even at the cost of some delay and expense, several alternatives should be presented to the Corporation of Edinburgh upon which to take a decision which so vitally affects the amenities of the capital city of our country and to some extent the estimate which future generations will have of the generation which erected these buildings.

Mr. MILLS: May I ask the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Kelvin-grove (Major Elliot) whether in making these proposals, he has any idea in mind of absorbing the permanent features of the existing gaol buildings?

Major ELLIOT: I would not absorb any part of the existing gaol buildings in Edinburgh. It might lead to awkward reminiscences by certain people. This is merely a question of a new site.

Sir FREDERICK THOMSON: I would like to reinforce what has fallen from my hon. and gallant Friend with regard to the Government buildings on the Calton Hill site. I agree with him entirely, with-
out casting any criticism on the architect of the Office of Works in any way. It is desirable that this most attractive site should have a building worthy of it, and imbued with the historic spirit of Scotland. Architecturally an opportunity is offered such as occurs only at rare intervals, and it is desirable that the plans for this great building should be open to competition by the profession of architects. As a native of Edinburgh, I am very jealous of its beauty. Within the last 20 years the city has been greatly enriched by two very notable buildings—the Thistle Chapel at St. Giles and the National War Memorial which is really a glory to Scotland. It is most desirable that the best advice that could be got through the Office of Works should be obtained. That is all that we ask. It is a reasonable request, and does not cast any slur on the professional advisers of the Office of Works. We feel that an eminent Scottish architect ought to be able to produce something better than an architect who is not Scottish. This is not a party question, and we ask that the right hon. Gentleman should not close his mind to the matter, but should see that this matter is thrown open to public competition, so that the very best architect may get an opportunity of submitting his plan.

The FIRST COMMISSIONER of WORKS (Mr. Lansbury): The subject of the new building on the Calton Hill site has been up for discussion and consideration much more than any other question since I have held this office. The House will understand that this question, although it has been before me many times during the past six months, was also before my predecessor for something like 15 or 18 months. When it was first put up to me for consideration, I discovered that the plans and the drawings were already in process of being placed before the Scottish Fine Arts Commission. The drawings and elevations were returned with some suggestion for improvement, which are now being completed. I think the House ought to know that the decision to entrust the work to the chief architect of the Office of Works was arrived at long before I took office, and that I found the whole process of producing the elevations and drawings almost complete. The position at this moment is that within the next month
or five weeks, at the outset, the completed drawings will be placed before the Fine Arts Commission. Thence they will go, under agreement, to the Edinburgh Corporation, as the hon. Member has told the House.
The decision that the Department has to come to is, "Shall we scrap the work of the chief architect and his assistants during the past 12 months without giving it fair examination, according to the terms of the agreement with the Edinburgh Corporation; or shall we give him a chance of showing his work for approval and advice from the Fine Arts Commission, and then submit it to the judgment of the Edinburgh Corporation?" Speaking for myself, I think I have no alternative but to allow him to complete his work, seeing that it is only a question of two or three weeks to the final conclusion. Supposing I had no sort of feeling of my own about it, supposing we leave out altogether the question of whether it is right that one man shall do it, or whether it shall be put out to open competition, what are the facts in connection with this business? For 18 months or two years the matter has been under consideration.
What is involved in this consideration? First of all, there is the terrible congestion of the Post Office, which has been going on for years. I believe the Postmaster-General, if he were here, would say that the congestion is really intolerable. There is no chance at all of any addition to the premises of the Post Office until this business of providing accommodation for the Inland Revenue officers is taken in hand, because the only buildings next to the Post Office are those which house the Inland Revenue officials, who are to be accommodated on the Calton Hill site. The next thing is that the Sheriff Officers' Court is to be accommodated on the Calton Hill site, and the present site of that Court is allocated to the National Library. Everyone admires the generosity of Sir Alexander Grant in putting up a huge sum of money in order to establish a National Library for Scotland. That project has been held up for a considerable time, because there is no site for it, and the site that has been chosen, and which I believe all Scotsmen agree about, is the Sheriffs' Court. That work cannot be got on with until we complete the accommodation at the new site.
I think that on the question of time alone I should be open to condemnation if within four or five weeks, or six weeks at the outside, of the completion of the plans which two of my predecessors agreed the chief architect of the Department should prepare I scrapped the whole thing and threw it open to public competition. I think I should warrant a vote of censure from this House if I did that. That is my view, and it is the view of the Government. When this matter came up I put the position as we see it to the Prime Minister. He is a Scotsman like other Members in this House, and he agreed that, in the circumstances, we were obliged to go on. The hon. and gallant Member said that I had had an interview with the Lord Provost. I travelled to Edinburgh in order to have that interview and to put the facts before him, and I met that deputation, that conference, with the feeling at least that those who represented the Sheriffs' Court Commissioners and those who represented the Edinburgh Corporation, although they still feel that the whole thing should have been thrown open to competition, did agree that it was rather unreasonable at the last moment to say to the chief architect of the Office of Works, who had acted on the instructions of his chief, "Your drawings are unworthy of consideration," without looking at his drawings.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us how it was that it was not thrown open in the first place? I know it was before his time.

Mr. LANSBURY: As a matter of fact, it has not been the custom of any Government to throw these things open for competition regularly. Some buildings have gone to open competition and some have not. The Admiralty new block was the last Government building to be erected in open competition, and that was in 1890. In 1891 the Victoria and Albert Museum went to limited competition, the War Office, the British Museum extension, the new Government offices in Whitehall—but that is not settled, I do not want anyone to think that is settled. This is all pre-War with regard to the Government offices in Whitehall. But those three went to selected competitors. The big new Embassy at Washington went to Sir Edwin Lutyens without competition. The Tokio Embassy also went to an
architect without competition. The decision as to whether a proposal shall be sent to selected architects for them to send in plans, or whether it shall be put in open competition, or whether it shall be sent to one architect who has been selected, appears to me, on looking over the history of the Department, to be a matter that is decided on each occasion. My two predecessors, Lord Peel and Lord Londonderry, decided that this should be done by the chief architect, but they also left open the question of the National Library—

Mr. MACQUISTEN: Was any objection taken at the time?

Mr. LANSBURY: So far as I can see, there was correspondence about it, but the hon. and gallant Gentleman will know better what the Scottish Office did. I cannot find any very strong opposition. There was correspondence about it—

Mr. ARTHUR MICHAEL SAMUEL: May I say that the matter came before me when I was Financial Secretary to the Treasury, and I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman what was the point that was put to Lord Peel and Lord Londonderry? Was it that this was a peculiarly national matter, which ought to be dealt with on national grounds?

Mr. LANSBURY: I would recommend the hon. Gentleman to read the speech of Lord Londonderry on the subject. If he has not it, I will send it to him. He will see that Lord Londonderry took up a very much stronger case on this subject than I am taking up this afternoon. I must press the point that when I entered office the plans were on the point of being submitted to the Fine Arts Commission of Scotland, and, therefore, on that question they are at least as guilty as I am, though I do not know that there is any guilt about it at all. They used their discretion, and I am using my discretion, having come into a set of conditions which I do not feel that I should be justified in upsetting.

Major ELLIOT: The right hon. Gentleman will agree that there is no letter on his files in any way admitting concurrence on behalf of the Scottish Office in the suggestion that this course should be followed?

Mr. LANSBURY: I will not bind my self to that, because you can have a sort of balancing position. I think the Scottish Office took no very strong opposition, but, on the basis—

Mr. STEPHEN: Perhaps my right hon. Friend would answer this question for me. Is there anything on his files to suggest that the Scottish Office took any exception to the Office of Works carrying this out? I put it in the opposite sense to that put by the hon. and gallant Gentleman.

Mr. LANSBURY: The whole question has been discussed, but not from the point of view of opposition in the sense that any strong protest was made against Lord Londonderry or the Department entrusting this business to its chief architect. There is a long letter from the Society of Scottish Architects, which went to the late Prime Minister just before the General Election, and which came to the present Prime Minister immediately after the General Election. Speaking for my self as an innocent victim of circumstances, I would be the last man to do anything to offend the susceptibilities of my Scottish colleagues in this House, but I want to enter a caveat against the idea that work paid for generally out of the funds of the British people should be allocated to one section or another. When we build, as I hope we shall, a fine suite of buildings in Whitehall, I hope that, if it goes to competition, as I hope it will, Scotsmen, Welshmen and Englishmen will have an equal chance—

Sir NICHOLAS GRATTAN-DOYLE: And Irishmen!

Mr. LANSBURY: Certainly, Irishmen would have an equal chance with everybody else. I am a good patriot, but there are limits to patriotism, and I think that, when you are all living together, as we are, we all ought to share in whatever plunder there is going, without one side benefiting too much. As to the beauties of Edinburgh, I went there somewhere about 40 years ago. It is a lovely city, and to think that I should want to sanction anything to spoil the beauties of Calton Hill is really stretching matters a little. I admire the Castle and the Castle Hill. I am sorry that Princes Street is not always worthy of itself in its architecture. I hope and believe that, if the Scottish Members and
people in Edinburgh will only have a little patience, they will find that the Office of Works—which is the British Office of Works, and not merely an English Office of Works—will produce a scheme that will redound to the glory of Scotland and to the honour of the Department.

Mr. KELLY: I beg to call your attention, Mr. Speaker, to the fact that there are not 40 Members; present.

Mr. STEPHEN: Is there not a tradition that an hon. Member should not exercise his right to draw attention to the fact that there are not 40 Members present on the day of the Adjournment? I know that previously Mr. Speaker has asked hon. Members not to press their right.

Mr. SPEAKER: If the hon. Member draws my attention to the fact, I shall have to take notice of it, but I think that the proceedings will probably come to an end in the ordinary course of events in a very few minutes.

Mr. KELLY: I think that one should persist when there are not 40 Members present out of a House of over 600.

Notice taken that 40 Members were not present; House counted; and 40 Members not being present—

The House was Adjourned at Twenty-eight Minutes before Five o'clock until Tuesday, 21st January, pursuant to the Resolution of the House of this day.